Answer:
b. context
Explanation:
In communication, the term context refers to the environment (physical) and the framework where communication takes place. In other words, it refers to the setting, the people that are around us and the place we are when we are communicating. Depending on the context we're in, our style will be different (phrasing, use of words, volume, etc).
In this example, Ralph was in a party and he was telling about it to his friend Sarah in a loud tone. However, when his mother enters the room, he changes his loud tone and stops using profanity. We can see that <u>there was a change in the environment where the communication was taking place when his mother entered the room and that change affected his style of talking</u> to his friend. Therefore, Ralph would be reacting to a change in context.
Answer: Juvenile Delinquent
Explanation:
Juvenile Delinquent is a person who has violated the regulations and law of a nation, performed some criminal act such as stealing,etc, participation in illegal activity.These criminal acts are performed by minor aged children usually ranging from 10 years to 18 years old.
They are not severely punished as adult criminals because they still are in adolescent category but the legal steps are taken accordingly such as parents pay penalty amount etc.
Answer:
Explanation:
Anytime an amendment was passed after the constitution was ratified by the states, would be a constitutional interest. Giving women the vote was both, but in my mind it was more of a constitutional issue. America prided her self on democratic rights. Yet it took women 144 years to get the vote. That was opposed by men who thought women were scatterbrained and flibbertigibbets (that's actually a word and it was used, among others not so delicate).
Constitutional additions also include 13 14 and 15 which have to do with African Americans. I think this was also a constitutional interest, but it had many national ones as well. Labor was one of them. Payment was another.
The Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966) required (for the first time) that someone accused of a crime be informed of his or her constitutional rights prior to interrogation. This protected the rights of the accused, or the defendant, in two new ways: 1) It educated the person about relevant constitutional rights; and 2) It inhibited law enforcement officials from infringing those rights by applying the Exclusionary Rule to any testimony/incriminating statements the defendant made unless he intentionally waived his rights.
