Among the functions listed above, those which correspond to <u>functions of state courts</u> are the following:
- To interpret the meaning of the laws
- To punish those who break the laws
In the first place, courts are one of the three state powers, the judiciary. They are in charge of interpreting what is stated in the laws in order to make decisions, within the framework judicial processes. Generally there is a dispute and their job is to conclude who is right or who is guilty and needs to receive a punishment, not according to their will but based on what is said in the law.
In opposition, making jobs is the job of the legislative power (Parliament) and enforcing them is the job of the executive power (Goverment). These are the other two state powers.
Granting pardon to those who have reformed is a step that in any case comes after a legal punishment for a bad conduct, and it has to be awarded by the rest of the society.
Answer: False
Explanation: The statement in the question describes Stimulus Equivalence.
Contingency Adduction occurs when an individual acquires a new behaviour through conditioning and another contingency adds it to its own range of behaviors.
Stimulus equivalence on the other hand is when more than one different stimuli get the same response. Similar to the response in a situation where conditioning did not take place, although the response is accurate, it has not been reinforced.
Answer:
perhaps the main reason why southeast Asia in particular is prone to such natural disasters is due to its location. The region sits on the Pacific Ring of Fire, a geologically and volcanically active area that stretches in a horseshoe like basin across the Pacific.
But the Leaders in Southeast Asia can work together in unity giving awareness, education, preparedness, and prediction and warning systems they can reduce the disruptive impacts of natural disasters on communities. Migration measures such as adoption fo zoning,land-use practices,and building codes are needed, however to prevent or reduce actual damage from hazards.
Answer: C In a 100-meter race, two of Amy's co-participants won Silver and Bronze and she performed exceedingly well; it follows that Amy won Gold.
Explanation:
There is a flaw in the evidence presented by the lawyer, several flaws actually:
- The client could have been the culprit and left the main door and garage open as an alibi.
- There is no mention of there being an altercation with a thief that cost the wife her life.
- There is no mention of things being stolen to prove that it was a thief.
The attorney used one logic and deduced a flawed conclusion from it so the option that is similar has to do the same as the above.
Option A is not applicable here as blame was taken by the perpetrator.
Option B is not flawed as one would be expected to be late in such circumstances.
Option C has a flaw because performing exceedingly well is relative. Amy could simply be performing exceedingly well in relation to past races. Amy's co-participants could have performed even better which is why they won medals and while Amy performed exceedingly well by her standards, it was not enough to win a medal.
Option D has no flaw. It is a logical deduction and argument just like option E.
