Answer:
The "snapping" of her fingers will have no effect or response in the scenario.
Explanation:
The situation above is related to the concept of "blocking" when it comes to Psychology. According to the<em> "blocking effect,"</em> conditioning to a particular stimulus will only be blocked<u> if that stimulus was reinforced in alignment with a conditioned stimulus before.</u>
So, in the situation above, the snapping of fingers refers to another unconditioned stimulus. Its conditioning was blocked because it was reinforced in compound with the previously conditioned stimulus. This time, the previously unconditioned stimulus<em> </em><em>(poking of Emily's eye</em>) becomes a conditioned stimulus. This is, primarily, because Emily has already gotten the association of the stimuli involved, so she no longer responded in the same manner or it had no more effect on her when her sister mentioned the word "Psychology."
<span>This is a prime example of step family rituals. In each step family, it is very important to develop a strong sense of family and it has been found that rituals can help create that sense. These rituals are interactions that are repetitive an emotionally meaning, and they often bring the family closer together.</span>
I believe it's Hawaii and maui
Answer: Ultramares corporation v. Touche established Ultramares doctrine. Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that scienter is required before CPAs can be held liable.
Explanation:
All the options except the above are true. Ultramares corporation v. Touche did establish the Ultramares doctrine.
United States v. Natelli sentenced two CPAs to prison for a year, in addition to fines, for violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Bily v. Arthur Young did not uphold the restatement doctrine. The restatement doctrine restatement doctrine makes an auditor liable to people who rely on the quality of his work be they his clients or third parties. Two high courts ruled that auditors are not liable to third parties who use their work but only to the party that contracted their work.
However, Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that an allegation of scienter (an intention to deceive) is not required before CPAs can be held liable as long as the actions constitute actual deception.
While rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act states the presence of scienter as a requirement to commit an offense, the court ruled against the statute by eliminating the Scienter clause from criminal statute and ruled against Ernst & Ernst.
