The correct answer would be, Problem focused, or Emotional focused in nature.
Coping strategies can be either Problem focused or Emotional focused in nature.
Explanation:
When a person deliberately, consciously tries to solve a problem, which can be personal or interpersonal in nature, in order to tolerate or avoid stress, then this strategy is called as the coping strategy. Coping strategies can be of the following nature:
- Problem Focused
- Emotional Focused
Problem focused coping strategies are the coping strategies to solve the problem to avoid the stress, whereas Emotional focused strategies are the coping strategies to deal with the emotional responses that occur when a person's emotions are exposed to the stressors.
Learn more about the coping strategies at:
brainly.com/question/13791232#
#LearnWithBrainly
There is no objective answer to this question, as both sides have arguments that support their views.
If you believe that you are bound by Hobbes' argument, it is because of tacit consent. Tacit consent means that, even though you have not explicitly agreed to follow laws, you have indicated your agreement through other means, for example, by using the public services of the government or by remaining within the limits of your country. Also, you could argue that any rational person would prefer to follow the rules of the government than to live in the state of nature. Therefore, if you are rational, your consent is assumed. Finally, you could also argue that while you did not explicitly agreed, maybe your ancestors did, which still binds you as a member of the same society.
On the other hand, if you believe that you are not bound by Hobbes' argument, you could argue that any contract that is not freely agreed upon is not valid. As the government uses force to make you act according to the law, you cannot be considered to be freely consenting. Also, you can argue that agreeing to follow some rules does not imply following <em>all</em> of the laws of the country. Finally, a common argument against Hobbes is the lack of empirical data. As we do not know if the state of nature is actually bad, or if the contract ever happened, the government cannot gain its legitimacy in that way.
Pratap Singh Shah was the king of the Nepal. He couldn't continue the unification so long because of the political obstacles.
<h3>When did Pratap Singh Shah became king?</h3>
Pratap Singh Shah became the ruler of Nepal in 1775. Pratap Singh Shah ruled for for 36 months, from 1777 to 1779, before passing away at the age of 26 from natural causes. Rana Bahadur Shah, his two-year-old son, succeeded him.
He couldn't unify the territories of the nation because he did not actively participated in the process of the unification like his father who was greatly involved and political crises also didn't allowed to do so.
Learn more about unification here:
brainly.com/question/4979723
#SPJ1
It would be drinking and driving, and ignoring driving signs
Answer:
D. Infer
Explanation:
Infer and conclusion is same meaning
