Answer:
Functionalism
Explanation:
Functionalism lays more emphasis on societal equilibrium. If something happens to disrupt the order and the flow of the system(as seen for individual farm), society must adjust to achieve a stable state. According to Durkheim, society should be analyzed and described in terms of functions. Society is a system of interrelated parts where no one part can function without the other.
Answer:
B. trademark violation.
Explanation:
Trademark violation or infringement is the use of a trademark or any such particular mark without the authority and using it to deceive the customers. Using an equivalent symbol or trademark creates confusion among the customers related to the authenticity o the product. It is a form of strict violation of the exclusive rights of a company or organization.
Answer: Despite the increased power of the president, the budget authority is still a major feature of congressional power.
Explanation:
I searched but couldn't get the bar chart provided in the question but I believe I can still help. Looking critically at the answers provided, the correct answer should be option B.
It should be noted that the budget process allows the Congress to be able to check the power of the executive branch of which the president is part of.
Therefore, the correct answer will be that "Despite the increased power of the president, the budget authority is still a major feature of congressional power".
Answer:
an avoidance-avoidance
Explanation:
Avoidance-avoidance conflict: The term"avoidance-avoidance conflict" refers to the tendency of an individual to make a particular decision by choosing between two equally or similar undesirable choices.
Example of avoidance-avoidance conflict: A boy encountering avoidance-avoidance conflict would be involved in the procedure of choosing between one of the two tasks i.e, either to do his school assignment or to do any household work.
In the question above, the statement signifies the avoidance-avoidance conflict.
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders.