Answer:
Situational awareness is MOST accurately defined as B. the ability to recognize any possible issues once you arrive at the scene and act proactively to avoid a negative impact.
Explanation:
When it comes to incident management, we can define situational awareness as the ability of taking in as much information as possible upon arriving at the scene. That will include understanding objects, environmental conditions, people, interactions, etc. so as to act in a proactive (as opposed to reactive) manner. This ability is crucial to avoid negative impact and prevent aggravating the situation.
Hypothesis is the correct answer.
A hypothesis is an idea or explanation created to explain a particular situation or condition. It's an unapproved theory that is given based on very limited evidence. Thus, when Mr. and Mrs. Hill say that their kids should pursue certain careers based on the assumption that men are good at Math and women are good at writing, their message best reflects what we know as a hypothesis.
E. Stop trade with Britain
Explanation:
- The Continental Association was established to carry out a plan of non-importation, non-consumption and non-exportation of goods among England and the colonies.
- The delegates authorized each district or city to elect a safety committee for this purpose.
- Further, Congress passed the Suffolk Decisions authorizing the preparation of a defense against a possible attack by the British Army in Boston.
- In the end, it was decided that Congress would reunite in the spring of next year, from which it can be concluded that the delegates perceived Congress as a permanent body.
- The good part hoped that through economic pressure he would achieve his goals.
Learn more on First Continental Congress on
brainly.com/question/783730
brainly.com/question/324881
brainly.com/question/321588
#learnwithBrainly
Answer:
Pros:
1) The system is a representative democracy, like most of the Western world. That means you get to elect your government and share in the power. Nice.
2) The system is more focused on individuals and their opinions. You elect a president, not a party or a bloc. I can't say that I'd like that to happen in my own country, but it seems like a good fit for America.
3) The concept of legislative, judicial and executive powers go back a long way and it's generally a good idea that the three keep each other checked. This isn't limited to the US system though. We use it Europe too.
Cons:
1) All Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President, which means he to a degree has authority over the Supreme Court, the judicial branch of the government
2) You have a two party system in which it is practically impossible to start a new party and get voted into your parliament. In Denmark, where I'm from, new parties come and go all the time. You just have to get 20.000 people to sign a document, then you're good to go and they can elect you into the Folketing. This means every segment of the country is represented, not just conservatives (Republicans) and moderate liberals (Democrats)
3) The US is made up of 51 different states, if I'm not wrong. And you collect all of the votes separately, which means that a state is either Republican or Democrat. This renders the votes of the minorities in these states entirely useless. All of the democrat votes in Texas aren't going to matter, when the majority votes Republican. In Denmark, the minority blue-bloc voters in Region Hovedstaden still get a say in the election.
Explanation:
I hope this helps!