If a therapist advised you to pay attention to how you were communicating with family members and to change harmful patterns, the therapist would most likely to be practicing <span>conjoint family therapy.
</span>Conjoint family therapy is called the therapy in which a clinician sees one family in therapy. This therapy makes sense i<span>f one holds the idea that an individual is inseparable from his or her family.</span>
<span>B) The nail moved to the magnet is the answer</span>
It is a poorly phrased central idea for a persuasive speech because it is "<span>expressed in figurative language."
Persuasive speech is a speech planned to persuade the group of onlookers to accomplish something. Regardless of whether you need to motivate individuals to vote, quit littering, or alter their opinions around a critical issue, powerful talks are a successful method to influence a crowd of people. There are numerous components that go into an effective persuasive speech. Yet, with some planning and practice, you can convey a ground-breaking speech.
</span>
Answer:
primary
Explanation:
a secondary source would be if someone were to write a speech about the declaration of independence, the declaration of independence itself is a primary source
Answer: Ultramares corporation v. Touche established Ultramares doctrine. Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that scienter is required before CPAs can be held liable.
Explanation:
All the options except the above are true. Ultramares corporation v. Touche did establish the Ultramares doctrine.
United States v. Natelli sentenced two CPAs to prison for a year, in addition to fines, for violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Bily v. Arthur Young did not uphold the restatement doctrine. The restatement doctrine restatement doctrine makes an auditor liable to people who rely on the quality of his work be they his clients or third parties. Two high courts ruled that auditors are not liable to third parties who use their work but only to the party that contracted their work.
However, Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that an allegation of scienter (an intention to deceive) is not required before CPAs can be held liable as long as the actions constitute actual deception.
While rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act states the presence of scienter as a requirement to commit an offense, the court ruled against the statute by eliminating the Scienter clause from criminal statute and ruled against Ernst & Ernst.
