Answer:-You are sending a past-due notice on an account.
-You want to schedule a meeting to update your boss on a client meeting.
-You need to fire your receptionist.
Explanation:
What is an indirect strategy?
This is a strategy that you can use to convey news without coming face to face with the receiver sometimes it helps to save time or if the news are not going to be good for the receiver.
A written message can be better to do that to actual approach an uncomfortable situation which will be difficult for you and the receiver of the news.
A meeting can be scheduled through the email without going direct to the boss which may disrupt him or her.
Sending an over due account notice through the mail would be better than to actual go deliver it in person.
Answer: She committed a Political Crime.
Even if Sherry was a victim of society, she committed a political crime.
Political crime is a criminal act against and that can prejudice the state, the government and the political system.
The consequences could be many, such as criminalisation may be that a range of human rights, civil rights, and freedoms are curtailed.
<span>These experiences are not limited to one brain pathway, but several. The ability for us to recognize faces is but one part of our overall experience, and shows that there are many systems that interact when performing even the simplest of tasks.</span>
Answer:
The personal fable.
Explanation:
The personal fable is a belief or notion that one perceives about himself/herself common during adolescence. They perceive themselves to be too unique a person ever walked on the planet. They believe that no problems can affect them regardless of their behavior.
<u>In the given case, Sandy is exemplifying a personal fable. It is because she is using toxic chemicals without face mask and spraying pesticides and weed killer abandon. She is perceiving that these toxics can not harm her because she is young and healthy. It is a personal fable</u>.
Thus, the correct answer is personal fable.
Miranda v. Arizona is the U.S. Supreme Court case that condemned using psychological coercion, engaging in trickery or deceit, holding a suspect incommunicado, or making promises that can't be kept.
The Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court ruling (1966) ruled that arrested persons have rights to self-discrimination and lawyers under the fifth and sixth amendments to the United States Constitution.
The Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights against defense counsel and self-incrimination before cross-examinating police.
the majority opinion by Earl Warren. Article 5 of the Constitutional Amendment requires law enforcement authorities to advise suspects on their right to remain silent during police detention interrogations and to consult lawyers.
Learn more about Miranda v. Arizona here: brainly.com/question/1307890
#SPJ4
