Answer:
conditiond stimulus
Explanation:¨Professor Kariag is turning off the projector to signal that there will be a quiz, so he is making it the conditioned stimulus.
Students experienced it previously so many times that they became aware that the signal means that a hard quiz was to come thereafter.
The act of just turning off the projector could have occurred at random , and that originally was just another neutral stimulus. After a neutral stimulus is paired with the doing of a quiz, a conditioned response is formed as well:
Students begin already to feel anxious.
Answer: Ambiguity aversion
Explanation:
In economics and decision theory in general, ambiguity aversion refers to the preference for known risks over unknown risks. This means that in a scenario in which there´s an option in which probable outcomes are unknown, people would rather choose an option in which probable outcomes are known.
No to be confused with risk aversion, which only applies to situations where each probable outcome can be established.
There are many reason like a new life, religion
Answer:
The meanings attached to social actions and symbols are socially constructed and contextually situated (A)
Explanation:
The sociological perspective can teach Amy that the meanings attached to social actions and symbols are socially constructed and contextually situated. Hence it is possible for Amy to use sign language in such control if she does not understand the language and culture of France. This means that social actions such as language learning and speaking as well as adapting to the culture of a person, is socially constructed.
not sure if this helps but I hope it does
sorry its so long
To date erosion scientists have failed to address — or have addressed inadequately — some of the ‘big questions’ of our discipline. For example, where is erosion occurring? Why is it happening, and who is to blame? How serious is it? Who does it affect? What should be the response? Can we prevent it? What are the costs of erosion? Our inability or reluctance to answer such questions damages our credibility and is based on weaknesses in commonly-used approaches and the spatial and temporal scales at which much research is carried out. We have difficulty in the recognition, description and quantification of erosion, and limited information on the magnitude and frequency of events that cause erosion. In particular there has been a neglect of extreme events which are known to contribute substantially to total erosion. The inadequacy and frequent misuse of existing data leaves us open to the charge of exaggeration of the erosion problem (a la Lomborg).
Models need to be developed for many purposes and at many scales. Existing models have proved to be of limited value, in the real as opposed to the academic world, both because of problems with the reliability of their results, and difficulties (with associated costs) of acquiring suitable data. However, there are some positive signs: models are now being developed for purposes including addressing questions of off-site impacts and land-use policy. Cheap, reliable and technically simple methods of erosion assessment at the field scale are needed. At the global scale, an up-date of GLASOD based on a scientific approach is urgent so that we are at least able to identify erosion ‘hotspots’.
In terms of explanation of erosion, the greatest need is for a full recognition of the importance of socio-economic drivers. The accession of new countries to the EU with different economic and land-use histories emphasises this need. Too often we have left people, especially the farmers, out of the picture. Our approach could be characterised as ‘data-rich and people-poor’.
