Answer:
The correct answer is "Awesome".
Explanation:
Ceasar Cipher is a encryption method used in the secret correspondences during the history of cryptography and it is one of the first methods of encryption. It is based on a basic principle of shifting each letter of the alphabet by a specific number and replacing it with the corresponding letter and it is easily solvable.
The word "EAIWSQI" given in the question uses a shift of 4 letters in the alphabet and it is shifted backwards so E corresponds the A, A corresponds to W and so on. When we apply this to the whole message, we can see that the corresponding word is "Awesome".
I hope this answer helps.
Answer:
B. Close mindedness
Explanation:
Close mindedness simply means to have a mind that is not receptive to new ideas. To be closed-minded. Can mean disapproving, not willing to consider a different idea or opinions.
When one has already decided not to change his/her mind no matter what you tell him/her, he disapproves. This is being close-minded. Close-mindedness will make you not to be able to listen to and understand what you are being told. This is basically because you already have an opinion concerning what you are being told and you are not ready to change it.
Because Dan is an atheist, he doesn't want to hear what anyone that mentions God have to say, hence he is close minded and that is a listening barrier.
The case<em> Roe vs. Wade in 1973</em> was one when the Supreme Court authorized woman's legal right to abortion. Judges voted the decision 7-2 with the argument that the woman's right to abortion was protected by the privacy rights of the Constitution Fourteenth Amendment.
This represented an example of<em> judicial activism</em> where the judges considered to decide constitutional issues and to invalidate execution actions.
Answer:
C) It is a mixture of salt and freshwater
Explanation:
Brackish water is water that is saltier than fresh water, but not as salty as seawater. It may result from mixing of seawater with fresh water.
The behaviour described above could be motivated by the so-called altruistic punishment.
The ultimatum game is a two-player game, in which the first player plays the role of the offeror while the second is the respondent. The first one is endowed with a certain amount of money (for example, 100 $) and has to make an offer about how to split it between the two of them. If the respondent accepts the offer, each player would receive the amount of money that had been proposed by the offeror. If the respondent does not accept, both will earn 0.
A respondent will accept any offer that maximizes his utility. If utility meant exactly the same as money earnings, the respondent would accept any offer in which he receives at least 1 $, as he would be left better off than before (when he had 0$). But this is not true, as in many cases the respondent would choose to punish the other player by refusing his offer so that both earn 0$, if he considers the other has done an unfair distribution. This behaviour is known as the altruistic punishment, as although the offeror is punished, he learns a lesson from it.
If the offeror had expected that possibility he would go for more egalitarian distributions, so that he makes sure the respondent does not punish him and both manage to earn some money. This is why in the end many proposers offer half of the money in the game.
