Answer:
general, particular
Explanation:
Peter berger describes using the sociological perspective as seeing the general in the particular.
Peter L. Berger created this term"sociological perspective". He stated that the sociological perspective was seeing "the general in the particular,". It helped the sociologists to realize the general patterns in the behavior of the specific individuals. As one can think of the sociological perspective in its own personal choice and to seek how society plays a role in shaping individuals' lives.
First, i would develop a similar product to 'create your own yogurt' but doing it by using natural Ingredients that definitely better for the health. After that, i would create a marketing campaign to create an awareness for the existence of my product. For the cherry on top, i would endorse several health and fitness professional to make a comparison review between my products and my competitor's.
Answer:
Three separate obligations are there, The sale of equipment, The sale of installation and the sale of training services
Explanation:
The sale of equipment:<em> </em>It is about the amount that is gained through the selling of equipment and used that amount in the business carrying amount when it sold.
The sale of installation: The sale by the installation is rex free. Taxes are not billed by the customer. Only the contractor is responsible for paying all the taxes or service charges.
The sale of training services:
The professional service charges are that an organization will face due to the competition. So the organization has to maintain all things related to its product quality, brand, value reputation.
<span>C) The Tigris and Euphrates Rivers provide fertile land for farming.</span>
A careful reading of the history of the “idea” of family preservation as well as an appraisal of the recent policy context for its adoption—as illuminated by Berry (1997), Schorr (1997), McCroskey and Meezan (1997), and others—suggests that all three explanations—dissensus on values, practice lacunae, and organizational complexities—may to a degree be valid. At a minimum, these and other trenchant commentaries such as those provided recently by Littell and Schuerman (1999) and Halpern (1999) suggest that any discussion of the “practice” of family preservation absent its historical/valuative roots and current organizational and policy context will be incomplete.
That said, this present paper will focus on some of the most vexing challenges of implementing family preservation practice, some of its enduring legacies as a practice modality, and some of the longer range problems in developing practice theory and application that it has illuminated
