Answer: first continuous, then partial
Explanation: Continous reinforcement refers to a reinforcement schedule whereby every correct response performed is praised or reinforced, here, every time John's pet correctly performs that trick, the active or response of the pet is rewarded, thus will help carry out the correct response due to the reinforcement it receives. However, after sometime the reinforcement should be partial such that the action isn't reinforced every time the trick is performed. This according to the partial reinforcement extinction effect is more erobust than continuous reimbursement.
Answer:
C)laissez-faire
Explanation:
Laissez-faire is a French expression, which means, in simple translation "let the market do". This term is the greatest symbol of economic liberalism and claims that the government of a country must stay away from trade, not being able to "get their hands on" that sector and let the trade itself regulate itself. In that case, the government should only maintain property rights and not engage in any kind of commercial pursuit.
As can be seen in the question above, Tocquevilles is talking about Laissez-faire, as he is arguing about the government's departure from trade.
Many people talk about academic excellence — but who or what really defines this elusive quality?
Michèle Lamont, Robert I. Goldman Professor of European Studies and professor of sociology and of African and African American studies, analyzes the system of peer review in her new book “How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment” (Harvard University Press, 2009). By examining the process of scholarly evaluation, she also addresses larger questions about academia.
“In some ways studying peer evaluation and review is a point of entry into a much broader issue, which is the issue of meritocracy in American higher education,” says Lamont.
To research the book, Lamont interviewed panelists from research councils and societies of fellows who were evaluating proposals for research funding in the social sciences and the humanities.
Lamont explains that academics must constantly make evaluations, whether of scientific findings or of graduate students. Expertise, personal taste, and the perspective of the evaluator play into the decision-making process, she writes.
“A lot of what the book does is to look at what criteria people use to judge and what meaning they give to these criteria,” says Lamont. “So for instance, what do they mean by ‘significance’ and what do they mean by ‘originality’? How does the definition of ‘originality’ and ‘significance’ vary between philosophy and economics? How strong is the consensus between fields?
The Supreme Court system is the first thing that comes to mind
