In assessing the internal validity of an intervention, we try to determine if certain changes cause certain outcomes. It is relevant in studies that try to establish casual relationship. While in observational or descriptive studies, it is not that relevant. It is also possible to have internal validity in a study and not have construct validity. Example, imagine a study where you are looking at the effects of a new computerized tutoring program on math performance in first grade students.
There is a strong correlation between the nature of social class and <em>social inequality</em>.
The stratification of <em>social classes</em> not only depend on wealth, but also on factors like education and a person's occupation. This means that people in the same social class, besides being in the same range of wealth, also share the same lifestyle and similar social honors from others.
<em>Social inequality</em> occurs when the sole distribution of wealth is unequal among all of the members of a given society.
Wealth is a powerful factor that enables a person to achieve a better education and eventually escalate to upper social classes. This is where social inequality relates with the nature of social classes.
D. Because loyalists sided with the British government
It is referred to frequently in the ancient Indian texts. The four classes were the Brahmins (priestly people), the Kshatriyas (also called Rajanyas, who were rulers, administrators and warriors), the Vaishyas (artisans, merchants, tradesmen and farmers), and Shudras (labouring classes).
Answer: As a country, America has gone though many political changes throughout her lifetime. Leaders have come and gone, all of them having different objectives and plans for the future. As history takes its course, though, most all of these “revolutionary movements” come to an end. One such movement was Reconstruction. Reconstruction was a time period in America consisting of many leaders, goals and accomplishments. Though, like all things in life, it did come to an end, the resulting outcome has been labeled both a success and a failure.
When Reconstruction began in 1865, a broken America had just finished fighting the Civil War. In all respects, Reconstruction was mainly just that. It was a time period of “putting back the pieces”, as people say. It was the point where America attempted to become a full running country once more. This, though, was not an easy task. The memory of massive death was still in the front of everyone’s mind, hardening into resentment and sometimes even hatred. The south was virtually non-existent politically or economically, and searching desperately for a way back in. Along with these things, now living amongst the population were almost four million former slaves, who had no idea how to make a living on their own. They had been freed by the 13th amendment in 1865, and in the future became a great concern to many political leaders. Still, it was no secret that something had to be done. So, as usually happens, political leaders appeared on the stage, each holding their own plan of Reconstruction, each certain their ideas were the correct ones. One of the first people who came up with a blueprint for Reconstruction was the president at the time, Abraham Lincoln. The “Lincoln Plan” was a very open one, stating that after certain criteria were met a confederate state could return to the union. To rejoin, a state had to have ten percent of voters both accept the emancipation of slaves and swear loyalty to the union. Also, those high ranking officers of the state could not hold office or carry out voting rights unless the president said so.
Explanation:
