Answer:
Cause they were losing
Explanation:
PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST
Answer: conditional positive regard
Explanation: Conditional Positive regard refers to an act whereby an individual receives warmth, acceptance etc when some certain standards and conditions are met. For example, a parent praises a child when they receive good grades in their exams and scold vehemently when they get bad grades.
Carl Rogers believed people question themselves and experience negative effects on their self-concept when they receive "conditional positive regards".
Actually Carl Rogers is an advocate for unconditional positive regard( acceptance and support of a person regardless of what the person says or does) and he believed that unconditional positive regard is essential for healthy development.
Answer:
<em>I can see that there are no choices.</em>
fallacy of bandwagon
Explanation:
A "logical fallacy" refers to the error of reasoning or logical gap that makes an argument invalid.
The situation above commits the fallacy of the bandwagon because the argument is being supported only according to a significant number of population. This is a fallacy because it doesn't necessarily mean all of the retired persons are unhappy about the level of Social Security assistance due to the opinion of 30 persons who agreed that they were unhappy. It becomes a "standalone justification" of the validity of an argument. We cannot judge the happiness or unhappiness of all retired persons according only to a group of 30 persons <em>(even though they were chosen from different parts of the country). </em>
So, this explains the answer.
d. Sasha will own the house and earn equity as its value increases.
<span>Speaker of the House is the answer you're looking for. Hope I helped!</span>