3) South Sudan
5)Egypt
6)Zaire
7)Kenya
8)Congo
2) South Africa
4)Nigeria
Hope this helped :)
None of these conclusions is valid.
- The first one implies that people either think that their employer should cover part of the health insurance costs (as said in the original sentence), or they think that the employer should pay 100%. This is not correct because there are other possible opinions people can have, like thinking that the employer shouldn't pay for anything, for example.
- The second conclusion is invalid for the same reason: it implies that people can only either think that the employer should pay a large part, or that the employer shouldn't pay anything. It is not considering other options.
- The third conclusion does not work either because it is referring to what people think about <em>the amount </em>of the costs themselves, whereas the original topic was <em>how</em> they are paid for.
I believe the answer is: <span>person-situation controversy
</span><span>person-situation controversy refers to a debate in the field of psychology which argue whether a person or the situation play a more crucial factor in determining a person's behavior.
</span>
Experts who support the 'person' side in this controversy believed that people with bad personality traits would always do bad behaviors regardless the situation they're in.
Experts who support the 'situation' side in this controversy believed that bad behaviors only occurs because the people are facing bad situations in their life.
Answer:
Answer is true.
Explanation:
Indirect strategy by cost escalation signals a kind of dissatisfaction simply by making greater demand on the partner involved.
The indirect strategy is a situation where the partner is a state of uncertainty concerning the relationship.
