Answer:
Consistency
Explanation:
This is defined as a degree of harmony one maintains as he produces same result or carry out same action over a long period of time without wavering.
A consistent person decides to stay on a course of action and stays on it for a long time.
Inconsistency is when one fails to maintan such harmony in staying on a result or course of action for long.
Misha having struggles with het computer at home, if she replicates same action with the computers in school it will be said to be a consistent behaviour.
Another of such example is when one decided to work out by 7pm every night.
Answer:
The inference that is best supported by the passage is: A. Prior to the "Click it or Ticket" law, motorist could not be stopped simply for not waring a seatbelt."
Explanation:
In the passage is very clear that in the new law motorist can be now pulled over and ticketed for not wearing seatbelts (later in the passage it implies that's the reason why lawyers and citizens' gorups are protesting), which implies that before the state legislature passed the law this was not a reason to be pulled over even though this is not stated in the passage, the entire text circles around the novelty of pulling over motorist for not wearing seatbelt, therefore the best option is A especially because that is the main idea of the text.
Answer:
Goals, methods, and styles of inquiry.
Explanation:
By establishing a comparison between the cultural directions that both law and psychology take, it is easier to figure out the reasons why, on some occasions, psychology and law have not been able to work together, whereas in some others, have been very productive in collaborating. These cultural differences take place because of their different goals, methods, and styles of inquiry.
