Answer:
option D
Explanation:
The correct answer is option D
In the given case, it is an example of attitudes follow behaviors for which we feel some responsibility.
The question it is given that student wants to study means student's attitude is toward studying and he also follows his behavior by truly understanding the material and working responsibly to study in the future.
Categorizing family members based on their hair color would be an example of "Family Resemblance Theory."
This is based on the idea that "Family Resemblance Theory is a theory that tried to explain the similarities in the family or things generally on commonly shared features.
Here, trying to categorize people or distinguish them based on the shared features, such as hair color, is an example of family resemblance theory.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that the family resemblance theory defined things based on similarities among them.
Learn more here: brainly.com/question/10436935
What language is this if i may ask
Answer:
False
Explanation:
The production of an item is not going through the consumers, but instead through the producers. The consumers are the ones that buy the products, while the producers are the ones that produce the products. In order to know how much should they produce, the producers rely on the market demand schedules. Through them, the producers are aware of how much is demanded, so that they can produce the right amount, and not come in a situation to have less products on the market, or too much products on the market.
Answer? 1) Yes, it is a bit ironic. If a company has an Ethics program that's comprehensive enough, executives should not have to be caught in business criminal activities.
2.) First let's talk about Ethics programs. These are basically programs that embody the business philosophies of a company such that every stakeholder understand how business is run in the company. It basically defines to employees, staff, investors, vendors and customers the rules of Business Ethics as defined by the firm, from the maximum amount of tips to collect from customers to how intimate employees get with clients so that there's no confusion. Now, all this is to clarify but the question here is how effective was the program if criminal activity was discovered? It's simple. The most comprehensive Ethics programs can't control human circumstantial behaviour. As clear as rules may be, they are always still broken. And this is because, with humans, there an infinite number of things to put into consideration, most of which won't always follow rules. One may be 100% compliant with said rules but find themselves weak to give in at some point for any possible reason the person deemed more important than upholding the companies ethics. In other words, these rules are held by the people it binds and the delivery will always be subjective. Whenever it is deemed unfavorable to uphold, it most likely will be dropped.
Therefore, it might have been the most effective and comprehensive Ethics program in the world but only as effective as the executives demmed it subjectively.
