Answer:
Human civilization changed between the Paleolithic and the Neolithic because we went from just hunting and gathering to practicing horticulture and farming. Our tool technologies also became more advanced.
Explanation:
The Paleolithic Era is also referred to as the Old Stone Age the stage in human prehistory when we first developed stone tools and the longest stage of our prehistory from around 3 million years ago until 12,000 years ago. The Neolithic is the era when humans began to practice horticulture and started domesticating some animals and plants. This covers the period from about 12,000 to around 2,000 years ago. Basically, the Paleolithic is when humans first started to use stone tools, while the Neolithic era is when humans started farming. Tools were more advanced in the Neolithic and our ancestors also lived in more permanent homes.
Answer:Group polarization
Explanation:
Group polarization is when a group which shares similar attitudes work together towards intensifying those attitudes more than they did when they had these ideas separately as individuals. Some intensified shared ideas may be risky such as when unrulyb mob gangs comes together to push their attitudes.
Some may breed fruitful actions such as mobilising together to protect the right of animals which may save lives of many animals.
Group Polarization makes an action possible that would have been impossible if someone was standing for the idea alone, numbers increase the strength of the idea to be implemented.
Group Polarization exist in order to give strength to persuasion, the attitude of a group is improved by their number more than it would if they were standing alone.
Answer? 1) Yes, it is a bit ironic. If a company has an Ethics program that's comprehensive enough, executives should not have to be caught in business criminal activities.
2.) First let's talk about Ethics programs. These are basically programs that embody the business philosophies of a company such that every stakeholder understand how business is run in the company. It basically defines to employees, staff, investors, vendors and customers the rules of Business Ethics as defined by the firm, from the maximum amount of tips to collect from customers to how intimate employees get with clients so that there's no confusion. Now, all this is to clarify but the question here is how effective was the program if criminal activity was discovered? It's simple. The most comprehensive Ethics programs can't control human circumstantial behaviour. As clear as rules may be, they are always still broken. And this is because, with humans, there an infinite number of things to put into consideration, most of which won't always follow rules. One may be 100% compliant with said rules but find themselves weak to give in at some point for any possible reason the person deemed more important than upholding the companies ethics. In other words, these rules are held by the people it binds and the delivery will always be subjective. Whenever it is deemed unfavorable to uphold, it most likely will be dropped.
Therefore, it might have been the most effective and comprehensive Ethics program in the world but only as effective as the executives demmed it subjectively.
Answer:
Hmm there are many things such as demographic transitional models, and epidemiological transition models, population pyramids, etc.
Explanation:
the models and population pyramids both help someone learn about an area at a given time. We can see how developed a country is by looking at birth and death rates, gender ratios, etc. For example, less children and a longer life expectancy means a more developed country, seeing as people live longer so there is no need for all those kids, and women are being given more education so it is less likely for them to want to stay home, but rather go out and get an education (:
Answer:
The correct answer is letter "A": To reach the river, this path must be followed.
Explanation:
Dangling modifiers are phrases that confuse the grammatical order of a sentence. This usually arises when the subject of a first clause is hidden in the subsequent segment by using the passive voice of the sentence. Thus, the segment should be corrected by converting the sentence back to the active voice. In the example:
- <em>To reach the river, </em><u><em>this path must be followed</em></u>. (Dangling modifier)
Should be transformed into:
- <em>To reach the river, </em><u><em>you must follow this path</em></u><em>.</em> (Correct form of the sentence)
