im not too quiet sure but I think the answer is b
Answer: Apparently, the main explanation why people did not stop to help the victim was the degree of obsession they had in trouble.
Even student who were going to talk about the good Samaritan were less likely to stop to offer help if they were running from one place to another.
Apparently, people who were in a hurry did not even notice the presence of the victim, although, to be fair, once they reached their destination and had time to think about the consequences they felt some guilt and anxiety.
This indicates that ignoring the victim is not necessarily a consequence of an indifferent attitude, but of being so involved in the things of one that the presence of the victim is not really noticeable.
In this order of ideas, the person who would be more likely to help a victim would be one who values their religion and belief too much or need a purpose for their life.
Answer:
Validity generalization.
Explanation:
This is a principle that guidance
and computed relations between individual-company which also measures of cognitive ability and how job performance are hampered by a number of methodological limitations that artificially affect the resulting validity coefficient.
There are different ways to validate pre-employment tests, but many validation procedures can be cost prohibitive or may require a lot of information to build on it. Example is demonstrating a predictive validity for a particular position, an organization needs to perform a local validity study on its own employees and applicants. However, these amount of data from this form of study would only be meaningful if the data sample was cumbersome. Small or medium-sized companies that don’t already have a large number of employees occupying a certain position would be unable to perform these types of studies on their own populations.
<span>Insanity was treated as an illness, not a crime.</span>