Answer:
<em>Disparate-treatment discrimination</em>
Explanation:
Hi! This would be an example of disparate-treatment discrimination. This is because<u><em> disparate treatment refers to a way to prove illegal employment discrimination</em></u>. An employee who makes a disparate treatment claim alleges that he or she was treated differently than other employees based on his ethnnicity and background.
Answer: B
Explanation:
Through the process of elimination, you can see that b is the answer because the information does show primaries are important, but they dont really play a role in every part of becoming president.
The answers not c because the popular vote does count since they must receive an electoral vote. And d is not the answer because money is necessary for political parties [to fund their purpose]
The second amendment gives people the right to own guns. The third amendment basically states that you can’t force people to house soldiers (more relevant in the older times). So, obviously the amendment we are dealing with here is the second amendment. A city or state is not allowed to ban something that is protected by the amendments, and having and owning a hand gun is protected by the second amendment (with a license). Therefore, the city of Chicago violated the second amendment. Your answer would be A.
Hope this helps :)
Answer:
c. Linguistic determinism hypothesis.
Explanation:
The linguistic determinism hypothesis is also known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. According to this theory, the language we speak determines our thought processes - such as memorization, categorization, and perception - and influences our social reality. Therefore, people who grow up speaking different mother tongues may have a hard time expressing their ideas in other languages. Their ideas and perceptions of the world are connected to the language they speak.
The Sapir-Whorf theory is used in the movie "Arrival", in which a linguist's cognitive processes are deeply enhanced by learning and immersing in an alien language.
Answer: The pundit is using a NATIONAL DEFENSE ARGUMENT to justify the trade restriction.
Explanation: National defense argument is when someone is using the security of the nation to defend his argument, to be very important as the security of the nation is very important.
This type of argument always tends to use the fallacy of red herring to convince his audience about his argument. The argument sounds to be important as it used red herring to relate it's point to the security of the nation during wartime.
The pundit politician has used the fallacy of red herring to relate it's reason of increment in the tariff of semiconductor importation, to the security of the nation during war times. Therefore this is a national security argument.
