Answer: One significant distinction among Kush and Egypt is their areas. Kush was a domain toward the south of Egypt and was worked at the base of the mountains. They had a consistent measure of precipitation. This precipitation combined with the spillover from the mountains implied that they quite often had fruitful soil. This was an alternate story for Egypt. Egypt relied upon the yearly flooding of the Nile River so as to have great soil to plant and develop food required for endurance. This flooding was indispensable to their progress. Another contrast among Kush and Egypt is that sovereigns governed Kush, not at all like the male lords and pharaohs that controlled Egypt. They additionally fabricated burial chambers like the Egyptians did however the Kush by and large constructed burial chambers with level rooftops on them. Kush likewise had regular assets, for example, gold, ivory, and iron metal. Preservation is likewise a region where they had a few contrasts. The cycle of embalmment in Egypt was frequently held for those with abundance on the grounds that the cycle was costly and the average citizens couldn't manage the cost of it. Kush aristocrats likewise embalmed their dead however the ordinary citizens preserved their dead also.
Explanation:
There is no objective answer to this question, as both sides have arguments that support their views.
If you believe that you are bound by Hobbes' argument, it is because of tacit consent. Tacit consent means that, even though you have not explicitly agreed to follow laws, you have indicated your agreement through other means, for example, by using the public services of the government or by remaining within the limits of your country. Also, you could argue that any rational person would prefer to follow the rules of the government than to live in the state of nature. Therefore, if you are rational, your consent is assumed. Finally, you could also argue that while you did not explicitly agreed, maybe your ancestors did, which still binds you as a member of the same society.
On the other hand, if you believe that you are not bound by Hobbes' argument, you could argue that any contract that is not freely agreed upon is not valid. As the government uses force to make you act according to the law, you cannot be considered to be freely consenting. Also, you can argue that agreeing to follow some rules does not imply following <em>all</em> of the laws of the country. Finally, a common argument against Hobbes is the lack of empirical data. As we do not know if the state of nature is actually bad, or if the contract ever happened, the government cannot gain its legitimacy in that way.
Answer:
It is called acculturation.
Explanation:
Acculturation is the <em>process of incorporation to a culture</em>. It includes social, psychological and cultural changes the individual has to go through in order to acclimate to the different culture. It takes time and steps since it is a process.
Answer: Higher order conditioning
Explanation:
Higher order conditioning refers to a situation in which a stimulus that was previously neutral is paired with a conditioned stimulus. Katherine's dog made use of higher order conditioning.
