The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Ted is playing a new lawn game for the first time that involves throwing wooden dowels as close as possible to a square target. He does well fairly quickly because the game is so similar to horseshoes, something he’s already good at. <em>This demonstrates Piaget’s concept of</em> assimilation.
Jean Piaget (1896-1980) was a psychologist from Switzerland that created the theory of "cognitive development" that refers to how children learn through childhood. "Assimilation" is a part of the adaptation process proposed by Piaget. During this process, we take new experiences and information that we incorporate in our knowledge
I may be wrong, but they were treated poorly, as slaves
<em>Answer:</em>
<em>proactive interference </em><em> </em>
<em>Explanation:</em>
<em>In psychology,</em><em> proactive interference is considered as one of the two different types of interference and is described as a phenomenon that occurs when an individual's old or former memories tends to interfere with his or her capability of encoding as well as retrieving a piece of new information. </em>
<em>According to various psychologists,</em><em> it seems very difficult for an individual to create or develop a specific new memory that tends to contradict or oppose or is too similar as compared to the older memories. </em>
<em>According to the question above, Jill is demonstrating proactive interference. </em>
Answer:a) Conditions and economies in most of the world's poorest countries have been improving despite the degradation of the environment.
Explanation:
The environmentalists paradox seeks to explain the environmental dilemma that the world faces today. The human inhabitants of the earth host seem to be improving while nature(earth) suffers. There's an ever increasing ecosystem degradation, pollution is high and species are dying off. There seems to be a negative correlation between human well being and that of the earth. Option A satisfies this correctly.
Answer: the correct answer is C. No, because the jury could find that the company should have foreseen that children would sneak into the park.
Explanation:
In this case, the company has the obligation to forsee possible threats and has no excuse for not having taken action in doing that.
