Hello. This question is incomplete. The full question is:
"Rosa, who operates a Street Tacos restaurant in her apartment, is charged with criminal violations of the local health and building codes, state license regulations, and federal environmental statutes. To obtain a conviction, the prosecution must
a. persuade three-fourths of the jurors to agree on a guilty verdict. b. show the evidence as reasonably permitting a guilty verdict. c. convince the court it is more likely than not that the charges are true d. prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rosa committed every essential element of an offense."
Answer:
b. show the evidence as reasonably permitting a guilty verdict.
Explanation:
When convicting someone for the practice of a criminal offense, the judge imposes the penal sanction that the law provides: penalties of imprisonment, detention, simple imprisonment, restrictive rights and a fine. This conviction has other effects, both criminal and extra-penal. However, for a conviction to be carried out, the judge must reach a conclusion that the defendant is guilty. In order to reach this conclusion, it is necessary to show evidence that proves that the defendant is acting in disagreement with the law and therefore should be punished.
In the case shown in the question, for Rosa to receive a sentence, the charge imposed on her must show evidence as reasonably allowing a guilty verdict.
I think it’s the Vice President
Answer:
The line item veto Act of 1996
Explanation:
Answer: classical conditioning
Explanation: Phobia are acquired through classical conditioning and maintained via operant conditioning, Carlos acquired the phobia because of his encounter with the bear thus, classical conditioning way of acquiring phobia. The operant conditioning of the Carlos's phobia is due to the fact that he still avoids bears i.e he keeps or maintained his phobia.
Answer:
Generally, conflicts arise from mismatches between power, organizational demands and feelings of personal worth..
<em>Human relations view of conflict means to accept that conflict is a important aspect of any organization. Rather than seeing it as a negative or a necessity it needs to be managed. If all of that is right. Then an example would be; If one person agues that Alternating current electricity is better than direct current electricity and the other says the opposite. The outcome now is that it is more beneficial we use both in everyday life. A/C is a safer and simplistic use of electricity for power converters while d/c is needed to supply a constant frequency current to LED lighting. Without both sides advancing we wouldn’t be able to keep progressing. or maybe that is a bad example… Maybe you start a business and you feel quality is a better formula than quantity. But you have such a high demand for your product your cheaper opponents outsell you. So now you decide to make a part of the product with a cheaper material. Thus still being superior product yet the quality has decreased. But now you have achieved a higher goal than you would have otherwise. I think conflict helps a company grow but if it leans too far one way outcome will become someone else’s achievement. If you cut out all conflict you may never be able to adapt to succeed.</em><em>.</em><em> </em>
