Answer:
The use of the term "ethical" sometimes is a bit too lax when applied to evaluate situations. However, sometimes, it can also be too harsh. In response to your two questions, these would be the answers:
1. The ethical question here would be whether Greedy was right in overusing a benefit that the charitable organization had with the First California Bank. As President of the organization, it is in the hands of Greedy to ensure not just development, but also sustainable development of the organization. However, in the course of his attempts to improve the growth and efficacy of Send Me Money, he abused the benefit of the overdraft, and not to just any extent, but to the negative balance of 10.000 dollars. Although his intentions were in favor of the organization, and he used the money wisely, there still lies the question of if he could not have accomplished just as much, without abusing a benefit that could very well mean the end of the organization. So the ethical issue is that although the intention of Greedy was in the benefit of the organization, he did not take the best interest of it into account, because if he had, he would have tried to accomplish his goals without bringing the debt so high.
2. I disapprove of the way that Bill Greedy acted because he could have accomplished much more realistic goals and not placed the organization at risk by raising the debt to a bank to such high levels. Even if he increased fundraising efforts, it is evident that these were not successful, as the debt is so high.
Answer:
My dear reader, the rule of law is not a respecter of person or group of persons. Every soul and institutions is equal before the law. Hence, no one is above the law. In any criminal trial, the onus of proving the guilt against an accused person arraigned before a court of law beyond reasonable doubt rest squarely on the prosecution unless, in some special cases when the prosecution closes its case having called witnesses to testify against an accused person.
Well, America Would basically fall apart. It causes many things to go wrong.
Town lifestyle (I assume you mean by this: a settled lifestyle , so that it contrasts with the nomadic lifestyle) comes with more security: you can store your food reserves and plan for the future.
nomadic lifestyle gives you more flexibility but less security: you can travel elsewhere if your fodosource is runnign low... but usually this is not as good of a food source as a settled lifestyle. One other possible advantage could be being merchants: nomads can benefit from a trade.
Answer:
Forward
Explanation:
In this procedure the child is taken from the first step of the procedure, sequentially until the last step. As in the case above, the child was asked to perform each step of the analysis.
