They were both allies of the same group under power
Explanation:
Social Darwinists believe in “survival of the fittest”—the idea that certain people become powerful in society because they are innately better. Social Darwinism has been used to justify imperialism, racism, eugenics and social inequality at various times over the past century and a half.
I think the summary judgement would be inappropriate in this case
Summary judgement is entered by the court if the plaintiff does not have sufficient evidence that the defendants actually do what they're accused of before moving to trial.
On this case, There is a strong proof that peoples restaurant is aware of Hoag's alcoholism : <u>intoxicated</u>
This mean that sabo can proof that the bar know hoag is an alcoholic and had served enough amount to hoag to get him intoxicated.
This mean that Sabo's case is strong enough to be brought to the trial. keep in mind that Sabo is unlikely to win the trial since the restaurant does not directly involved in the accident. but we can definitely say that summary judgement would be inappropriate in this case.
Within the first stage of team development, called <u>forming</u>.
<u>Explanation</u>:
The first stage of team development is called team forming. The members of the team get oriented and acquainted with each other during team forming.
There are five different stages of team development. They are as follows:
i) Forming
ii) Storming
iii) Norming
iv) Performing
v) Adjourning
Storming explains the emergence of roles and conflicts within the group. The conflict is being solved and unity is maintained in norming stage. Performing ensures problem solving and completing the given task. Disbandment of the team takes place as last stage in team development.
Answer:
the answer is A.) Strait of Hormuz
