The greatest priority in every State is security. As a matter of fact, a nation without a powerful military can be an attractive target for terrorists. However, countries present different realities and what may seem the best investiment for one country might not be the right alternative for another. It all depends on the situation and the level of development of each nation-state. If we take into consideration that the money ($11 billion) the U.S spent in Iraq, that was labeled as "wasted" later on, could have paid over 220,000 teachers' salaries, the answer to this question becomes very obvious. In my opinion, having a balance between both investments is vital. But, if I had to choose, I'd choose to invest in infrastructure because they're essential to a country's economy and prosperity; a country that is economically developed and prosper will manage its military successfully.
Proteins, I love you're screenname btw
Answer:
High subjectivity
Explanation:
Trait approach to leadership specifies on the idea that leaders of great personalities are born with such talents and qualities. They believed that these qualities are not learned but are in-borne.
Arif is presented as a great leader here. He leads a small group of human resources professionals in his office. But two of his staff does not agree about the leader ship traits that Arif carries
Thus thus disagreement describes the High subjectivity of the main criticisms of the trait approach.
Thus the answer is High subjectivity.
The answer is amygdale. It is because the function of the amygdale
is controlling emotions in which a person feels such as having to feel afraid
when expose to a particular environment or stimulus that the individual is
involved in.
Answer:
C. Groupthink
Explanation:
Based on the scenario being described within the question it can be said that the psychological phenomenon occurring here is known as Groupthink. This is a phenomenon in which individuals within a group make decisions that they are not comfortable with or support in order to maintain harmony within the group. Which is what happened in this scenario since no one spoke up about the ill subjects in order to maintain the harmony within the group.