Answer:
Women tend to have more relational interdependence, and men tend to have more collective interdependence.
Explanation:
Interdependence refers to the <em>dependence between 2 or more people on each other. </em>
- Women have more of a relational interdependence, meaning that they generally identify more in small groups or encounters. They have more interdependence on a one-to-one relation.
- Men, on the other hand, have more of a collective interdependence, meaning that they identify more with large groups or crowds.
Answer:
they offer a much more accurate measurement of candidate’s personality
Explanation:
Forced choice questions format is a format for survey responses that requires respondents to provide an answer (e.g., yes or no, agree or disagree), forcing them to make judgments about each response option.
In other words, it is a format of survey that provides questions that eliminate Don’t Know and Neutral response options, such that, it forces respondents to express an opinion or attitude.
The forced choice format increases the number of survey records with responses that are usable for analysis. Hence, Forced Choice personality tests offer a much more accurate measurement of candidate’s personality even though it is difficult to construct and leads to losing in scale.
Forced-choice would be more suitable for assessing higher management or those with high cognitive skills and a simple personality test would be ideal for freshers.
According to Jewish tradition, the Israelites were in Egypt for 210 years (Rashi commentary, on Exodus ch.12). For the first century, they lived in peace and plenty, as long as Joseph and his brothers were still living. After that, they were enslaved by the Egyptians. The enslavement was gradual, in steps, eventually becoming harsh and crushing (Exodus ch.1). At the end of that time, God sent Moses (Exodus ch.3) to demand that Pharaoh free the Israelites; and He brought plagues upon Egypt (Exodus ch.7-12) when Pharaoh refused.
As a related topic, a brief biography of Moses may be pertinent here:
Moses was born 245 years after the death of Abraham. Pharaoh had decreed that Israelite boys be killed (Exodus ch.1), but the daughter of Pharaoh took pity on the infant Moses (Exodus ch.2) and raised him as her own son. He was forced to flee after killing a cruel Egyptian taskmaster, and went to Midian, where he wedded the daughter of Jethro. He eventually achieved the highest level of prophecy (Deuteronomy ch.34) and was called upon by God (Exodus ch.3).
The importance of Moses cannot be overstated. He brought the Israelites out of Egyptian slavery (Exodus ch.12). He received the Torah from God (Exodus 24:12) and later recorded it in writing (Deuteronomy 31:24). He went up on Mount Sinai for 40 days and nights (Deuteronomy ch.9-10) and brought down the Two Stone Tablets with the Ten Commandments (Exodus 31:18). He brought the Israelites into the covenant with God (Exodus ch.19 and ch.24), and he oversaw the building of the Tabernacle (Exodus ch.35-40). He was the humblest of men and the greatest of prophets (Numbers ch.12).
The U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Scott lived in Wisconsin with his master, Dr. John Emerson, for several years before returning to Missouri, a slave state. In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master’s widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision. Scott appealed the decision, and as his new master, J.F.A. Sanford, was a resident of New York, a federal court decided to hear the case on the basis of the diversity of state citizenship represented. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was divided along slavery and antislavery lines; although the Southern justices had a majority.
During the trial, the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Southern majority responded by ruling on March 6, 1857, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Three of the Southern justices also held that African Americans who were slaves or whose ancestors were slaves were not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. These rulings all confirmed that, in the view of the nation’s highest court, under no condition did Dred Scott have the legal right to request his freedom. The Supreme Court’s verdict further inflamed the irrepressible differences in America over the issue of slavery, which in 1861 erupted with the outbreak of the American Civil War.
