John Garcia was an American psychologist very well-known for his researches that focused on taste aversion in rats and for discovering conditioning taste aversion. Taste aversion is often developed after having a drink or food that causes nausea, vomiting or sickness afterwards. Garcia challenged the idea that:
- any association can be learned equally well.
- conditioning takes place in an even faster and stronger manner when the conditioned stimulus is ecologically relevant.
Therefore, the ability to develop a taste aversion works as a survival mechanism. And, regardless of the taste of the food, sights and sounds, ones can tricky themselves into not liking the taste simply because they relate sickness with it.
Any practices should best be based on a research - this is the correct answer. (a. child development and research) Research is the best source of actual knowledge, rather than people's best guesses (people's best guesses might lead government regulations, but it would be better if they also followed research results.).
There are several reasons why couples get a divorce, and here are the most usual ones:
- if they have been divorced before, or if their parents were divorced when they were still kids
- if they married at a young age (anything before 20s)
- if they had children very quickly after getting married
These are some of the reasons why couples might get a divorce and why there are so many of them.
Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States: In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax".[2]
The Court engaged in the process of judicial review by examining the
plaintiff's claim that the carriage tax was unconstitutional. After
review, the Supreme Court decided the Carriage Act was not
unconstitutional. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison[3]
was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority
for judicial review to strike down a law as unconstitutional. At the
end of his opinion in this decision,[4]
Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's
responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary
consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as
instructed in Article Six of the Constitution.
