Answer&Explanation:
An outlaw is someone who has done criminal activities and as a result has become a fugitive but still they are accepted within their society whilst an Outcast Habitus is someone who had been banished from their society and they are no longer seen as member of that society.
An outcast has been completely rejected even from their homes or in any exclusion and no one even pays attention to them anymore this is the person who has done something that is considered to be an abomination within society and has offended the whole community. Outlaw has committed many criminal activities that even the kaw doesn't protect them anymore because they have run away from the law several times so the law has withdrawn their right to protect this person even the society can kill this perosn
If this question is based on Billy Milligan story, than yes :) There were real examples, although just a few of them during the whole history, or maybe noone knew about such a syndrome earlier.
Proponents of an <u>integrative mind design</u> would argue that your awareness of the context affected your interpretation of the ambiguous word.
<u>Explanation</u>:
Integrative thinking is the ability of thinking and producing a creative solution out of two opposing ideas. This kind of scenario occurs when the person is under tension.
The created solution should be common to both the situation and superior to both.
The new idea is created to face the situation in tension. This is known as integrative thinking.
In the above scenario, the sister yelled at her sister on seeing the barking dogs surrounding her. It used the term be_ le instead of beagle. This is was due to tension.
The answer is 80%.
The study indicates that people who constantly receive pyschoteraphy tend to do better in stress management.
This will enchance various aspects of their life, ranging from personal relationship, spiritual beliefs, or career advancement.
Grant and Sherman used the strategy of total war to shorten the war in their favor, using the many deaths of enemies to save lives on their side. We may never know if more would've died if they didn't use the tactic, but in my opinion civilian lives were not theirs to take. Soldiers agreed to die, but civilians didn't, making total war, in my opinion, not right. Others may say that their lives were a necessary sacrifice towards a common goal, but, in my opinion, if one side uses total war, can't the other side use it too for a horrible end? Form your own opinion, but that is mine.
