I believe the correct answer is A. associated
with increased feelings of self-efficacy, active coping, and the motivation to
stop drinking, which are all predictors of a positive outcome.
The research on the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA),
an
international mutual aid fellowship, program suggests that it is associated
with increased feelings of self-efficacy, active coping, and the motivation to
stop drinking, which are all predictors of a positive outcome.
The available options are:
A. peace is not possible for all people of the world.
B. some men will still lead lives of fear and want.
C. the allied powers will defeat Nazi Germany.
D. Germany will cooperate with Great Britain and the US.
Answer:
the allied powers will defeat Nazi Germany.
Explanation:
The above statement is an excerpt from the Joint Statement by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill.
It talked about what would happen to the world "after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny."
This statement or excerpt shows that the statement is based on the assumption that the Allied powers which comprise the USA, the UK, France, the Soviet Union, and their other allies will defeat Nazi Germany in World War II.
A executive order is different from a law because a executive order is told to be done at times while a law is used all around every day
Answer:
Stay with her current partner until her alternatives improve
Explanation:
According to the interpendence theory, People's decision to form a relationship with another person is heavily influenced on the cost and benefit that they expect to get from that person.
This theory conveys that people could abandon a relationship with a person in order to form a relationship with another if those people perceive that the benefit that they get from the new person is higher than the old ones.
So, if this theory is implemented to Rhonda's situation, she will most likely Stay with her current partner until her alternatives improve.
Answer:
You should think about fair competition.
Explanation:
The ethics question here would be: Is the contribution I'm willing to pay to get the contract a bribery? So, if there are better firms than mine but they don't have the money to pay the contribution, does it mean I get preferential treatment because I can afford it? Wouldn't it be considered unfair by many?
This a common practice in business and although seen morally wrong by many, it is the only way to ensure some contracts are signed. People who advocate this way of dealing with allocating contracts say that it is a fair way, everybody has the opportunity in life to make money and some people would always make more than others. Critics say that it's unfair, especially for smaller firms and developing companies, as their chances to win big contracts are being reduced drastically.
