The answer is superseding. An intervening cause will by and large clear the tortfeasor of obligation for the casualty's damage just if the occasion is esteemed a superseding cause. A superseding cause is an unforeseeable intervening cause. By differentiate, a predictable intervening cause commonly does not break the chain of causality, implying that the tortfeasor is as yet in charge of the casualty's damage—unless the occasion prompts an unforeseeable outcome.
1. Use diagrams for classification, not just comparison.
2. Draw diagrams to meet your needs.
3.. Draw the universal set.
4. Work your way up, from least complicated to most complicated, then you'll be accustomed to every type.
hope this helped!
(:
Answer:
Equity theory
Explanation:
Equity theory refers to the fair distribution of resources between people. Equity is measured by c<u>omparing the ratio of contributions and rewards for each person and seeing if the ratio is the same</u>
When we apply this theory to a working environment, this theory means that <u>we expect that people that make the same kind of contributions to the work place have the same rewards</u> (salary, for example) and if they contribute less to the workplace (for example by having less experience) we expect them to have a less salary or rewards. <u>When this doesn't happen we lose motivation in our workplace and diminish our satisfaction. </u>
In this example <u>Nicole learned that her coworker who has less education and experience (contributions) is paid more than here (rewards), therefore she is not happy about the situation</u>. Because s<u>he would expect her coworker to earn less since she's making less contributions, t</u>he theory of motivation that would describe Nicole's reaction would be the Equity Theory.
I would have to go with The answer is A.
