D) a complex metaphoric relationship
Answer: Every day, we make hundreds of choices.
Explanation: We choose what to wear, what to do when we get home from work or school, and how to respond when someone makes fun of us. Sometimes we also make big decision, such as what kind of school to go to, what career to pursue, whether to get married, and whether to have a child. Sometimes people make decisions that are even bigger than these because the decisions affect hundreds or millions of people - decisions about war and peace or about changes in the laws. Even if we ourselves don't make such big decisions, we need to understand how they are made. Most of the time, we make these choices without thinking. For small, routine choices such as how to respond when your friend starts a conversation with you, you do not need to think. You have learned how to talk and how to behave in a friendly way without thinking at all, and your habits serve you well. You could behave differently than you do, of course, but your behavior is probably fine as it is. In other cases, though, you THINK about your decisions, from what to wear in the morning to how to spend your money. Sometimes people make choices without thinking when they really ought to think a bit. For example, we sometimes say things that hurt people's feelings and then we feel bad for having said them. Can you think of other examples of things we do because we didn't think first? WHEN it is worth thinking about decisions and, mostly, HOW to think about them once you start thinking. It will teach by example. You will be given a problem about decision making. First, think about the problem and try to answer it. You can discuss the problem with someone else. Then turn the page and look at the answer carefully. Where do these answers come from, and why are they right? The answers come from a field of study called decision theory. It is taught in colleges and graduate schools. It is sometimes used as a way of making very important decisions such as whether to have surgery or where to locate an airport. People who study decision theory and write about agree about some things and disagree about others.
Answer:
This case involves a federal death sentence imposed on defendant-appellant Fields for conviction of a federal capital offense. Fields was sentenced to death largely on the basis of the opinion of a psychiatrist who stated that he could confidently predict Fields would be dangerous in the future. The psychiatrist testified that he did not know of any "standard psychiatric or medical procedures used in arriving at a determination or predicting future dangerousness" and that he was unaware of specific empirical data or studies. He issued his opinion without engaging in any testing or any other objective measures or use of an actuarial method. His basis for this opinion was discussions with the prosecutors and review of some records regarding the defendant. The defense attorney objected to the testimony as unreliable under the standards for expert testimony established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical (i.e., that proffered evidence must be grounded in scientific reasoning or methodology). The district court overruled the objections and allowed the expert testimony to go to the jury.
Explanation:
