<u>People </u>who score high on the need for power tend to be more impulsive and aggressive.
The <em>motive </em>approach towards the study of personality classifies people according to their predominant motives for doing things. It assumes that behaviors are underpinned by certain needs, and these needs differ from one person to the other.
People driven by the need for <em>power</em><em> </em>tend to be more impulsive and aggressive. They aim for positions of influence, for prestige, and to be ahead of those around them. They place importance on status and position.
Other types of motivation include the need for <em>affiliation </em>(social relationships), the need for <em>achievement </em>(to attain goals and overcome obstacles), and the need for <em>intimacy </em>(warm and close relationships).
To learn more about impulsive and aggressive behavior: brainly.com/question/6104165
#SPJ4
Answer:
E) In the majority of states, the landlord is required to remove the previous tenant or break the agreement with the new tenant.
Explanation:
The landlord will be required to have the previous tenant Eliza who is illegally( we are assuming) occupying the apartment, leave the apartment or he would be breaking the agreement with the new tenant. In some states in the US such as Chicago, the landlord would have to serve a notice to the tenant, and begin formal proceedings after which he may proceed to file a forcible entry or detainer action against the tenant if he remains in the property after expiration of appropriate number of days since notice was served. Eviction proceedings are relatively fast(a few weeks, unless the tenant files a defense) and are handled by local courts He may have to reimburse and settle the new tenant for any damages suffered.
Africa abviously.,...................
Answer:
Answer is Option B: that she was under undo duress from her son and daughter-in-law and that the agreement is voidable.
Explanation:
When the broker came to offer Mrs. G, the price he offered was quite less than what she was asking for. Still his son and his wife urged her to sign the offer. So, later she can claim that she was under a lot of threat and violence from her son and daughter-in-law to sign the offer and it would make the agreement voidable.
She cannot claim about Broker's offering less price, as per Option A. Neither she can say that Broker defrauded them, as per Option C. Option D is also incorrect as it says that her consumer rights were taken illegally by her son and his wife.
