Answer:
practiced using the keyboard until she could advance the slides easily.
Explanation:
Kenny would have presented the slides more effectively if he had practiced using the keyboard until she could advance the slides easily. Just like everything else, practice makes perfect. If Kenny would have continuously practiced pressing the enter key and moving from slide to slide smoothly before the presentation, then during the presentation muscle memory would have kicked in and he would not have had any problem.
Answer: Yes I do believe that farming and cattle ranching would've become big industries without technological innovations.
Explanation:
I think this because technology makes farming in general way easier then before because we now have access to methods that we never had before when technology wasn't around. Technology helps farmers and cattle ranchers spread their business and promote their products all over the internet which also proves how farming and cattle ranching would've not become as big as it is today without technological innovations.
Answer:
Normative social influence
Explanation:
Normative social influence: In social psychology, the term normative social influence is defined as a form of social influence that often leads to conformity. In other words, an individual conforms according to the other members in a particular group or situation to be liked or accepted by the other person. It is being moderated by social support and group size.
Example: Peer pressure.
In the question above, the statement illustrates the power of normative social influence.
Answer:
They disappeared afta the water melted
Explanation:
Answer:
The correct answer is A. Subjective.
Explanation:
The execution, maintenance or inhibition of a behavior is based on a subjective analysis of the “costs and benefits” of the consequences for each of these cases. In this analysis, if the benefits are greater than the costs of a conduct or behavior, this will be maintained over time by simple positive feedback. All our decisions are determined by the result of an internal evaluation that the person makes of the environment (and its triggers) and its eventual consequences. That is, the decision is subject to the evaluation of its costs and benefits. If the benefits that the consequence of a decision will bring are greater (for the person and their environment) than the associated costs of emitting it, then the decision tends to be maintained, since it receives a source of feedback in itself (benefits).However, as the reflection prior to the emission of a behavior is subjective, since each of us evaluates the environment from our experiences, interests, motivations and expectations, then we add to the analysis the possibility that there are different versions or definitions of what which could be considered as "cost" or "benefit".
