Answer:
The James-Lang theory states that our experiences of emotion is our awareness of our physiological responses to emotion-arousing stimuli, meaning that your body does certain thing which is then followed by an emotion. For example, your heart racing, and body shaking would be followed by a sudden rush of fear.
The Cannon-Bard theory states that an emotion arousing stimulus simultaneously triggers a physiological response and the subjective experience of an emotion. Disagreeing with the James-Lang theory, the Cannon-Bard suggests that the feeling of fear does not cause your heart rate to increase but your heart rate increasing, does not evoke a feeling of fear, rather, these are both separate occurrences that happen simultaneously.
The two-factor theory states that to experience emotion, you must be physically aroused and cognitively label the arousal. This means that in order to feel an emotion you have to be consciously aware of the stimuli provoking and causing the emotion.
The Zajonc, LeDoux, and Lazarus theory states that some emotions can occur instantly with out conscious appraisal.
Explanation:
I just wrote this, i hope it helps :)
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
You do not include any reference to what argument, text, or paper written by James Madison, because he wrote many as part of the authors of the Federalists papers.
However, probably you are referring to "Federalist N.-10." If this is the case, then the correct answer is the following.
Madison used the comparison to bolster his argument in that he compares two forms of government: Republic and Pure Democracy. In that comparison, James Madison says that the wrongdoings and failures of Pure Democracy represent the benefits of a Republic. So he tries to promote the idea of a Republic as the new form of government for the new nation.
Answer:
It has been suppressed by <em>Grutter v. Bollinger (2003).</em>
Explanation:
According to the <u>University of California v. Bakke case</u> (1978), college applicants’ race was allowed to be a factor in the admission policy, though racial quotas were ruled as impermissible.
Meanwhile, in 2003 <u>Grutter v. Bollinger</u> <u>case</u> ended with a court's decision that<em> admission policy that favors poorly represented ethnic minority groups does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, only if the policy takes other factors, such as academic excellence, into account.</em>
