The answer is: <span>the directionality problem
</span><span>the directionality problem refers to a type of problem in which the cause and effect relationship is not known.But even though the relationship is not known, we can now for sure that the problem is exist because it shows obvious effect/symtomps.</span>
Answer: Variable-ratio
Explanation:
Variable ratio schedule is defined as reinforcement schedule in which a response is reinforced after uncertain or sudden number of responses.It has the ability to generate high rate of response system with unpredictable factor. Example of variable ration schedule can be gambling game etc.
According to the question,Steve is reinforced into variable ratio schedule as chances of getting reward is uncertain because reward is given for assignment after number of assignment passes without any reward by instructor.
Answer:
The correct answer will be- No.
Explanation:
The research is called scientific research if it follows the scientific method that is making observations, asking questions, proposing hypothesis which could be tested through the expedients.
In the given questions, since the scientist tried to study the effect of the stars in the personalty for which he continuously recorded the results for four years. The co-relation of the stars to the type of personality depends on the belief system but it lacks any evidence to support the case. So, this will be the case of the pseudo-science.
Thus, No will be the correct answer.
There is no objective answer to this question, as both sides have arguments that support their views.
If you believe that you are bound by Hobbes' argument, it is because of tacit consent. Tacit consent means that, even though you have not explicitly agreed to follow laws, you have indicated your agreement through other means, for example, by using the public services of the government or by remaining within the limits of your country. Also, you could argue that any rational person would prefer to follow the rules of the government than to live in the state of nature. Therefore, if you are rational, your consent is assumed. Finally, you could also argue that while you did not explicitly agreed, maybe your ancestors did, which still binds you as a member of the same society.
On the other hand, if you believe that you are not bound by Hobbes' argument, you could argue that any contract that is not freely agreed upon is not valid. As the government uses force to make you act according to the law, you cannot be considered to be freely consenting. Also, you can argue that agreeing to follow some rules does not imply following <em>all</em> of the laws of the country. Finally, a common argument against Hobbes is the lack of empirical data. As we do not know if the state of nature is actually bad, or if the contract ever happened, the government cannot gain its legitimacy in that way.
British: They actually tried to settle the land that they claimed, bringing more colonists and actually farming the area.
French: they mostly just trapped and hunted. Except for a few cities and towns, the French really didn't try to settle the area that they claimed
hope this helps
