Answer:
The correct answer is A. The argument presupposes the conclusion for which it purports to provide evidence.
Explanation:
The idea in this question is to identify the most vulnerable argument, for which it is possible to conclude that The first argument is only base in the opinion of the theorists and critics and there is no clear evidence or facts to prove the statement. It only states because of someone's opinion “no aesthetic evaluation of a work of art is sound if it is based even in part on data about the cultural background of the artist” simply the argument is false. This results as a fallacy since it is an argument without evidence to show that it is valid.
International Monetary Fund (IMF)-an organization of 189 countries, that work to foster global monetary cooperation, facilitate international trade, secure financial stability and reduce poverty around the world
The World trade organization (WTO)-is the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations
Answer:
--helps bind people together by creating bonds of mutual obligation.
---is only appropriate when people do not expect anything in return for their gift.
Explanation:
Reciprocity is the act of giving a person a gift without expecting something in return. Generalized reciprocity creates a moral obligations among the people in the society. This is usually practiced among common friends and people who are closely attached to one another.
When there is a reciprocity, a smile or love or kindness or thank you is always included in the exchange. It binds the people together and bring them close top each other in the society by binding them with mutual obligations.
Answer: ethical lapse
Explanation:
An ethical lapse is an error or mistake in judgement that an individual commits which brings about a harmful outcome. It is usually as a result of an oversight as it really doesn't mean that the individual lacks integrity.
The scenario in the question is an ethical lapse. This is because the extra $25 she pocketed wasn't accounted for as it was an oversight and it wasn't that she intentionally stole the $25 or didn't account for it intentionally.
