Answer: C In a 100-meter race, two of Amy's co-participants won Silver and Bronze and she performed exceedingly well; it follows that Amy won Gold.
Explanation:
There is a flaw in the evidence presented by the lawyer, several flaws actually:
- The client could have been the culprit and left the main door and garage open as an alibi.
- There is no mention of there being an altercation with a thief that cost the wife her life.
- There is no mention of things being stolen to prove that it was a thief.
The attorney used one logic and deduced a flawed conclusion from it so the option that is similar has to do the same as the above.
Option A is not applicable here as blame was taken by the perpetrator.
Option B is not flawed as one would be expected to be late in such circumstances.
Option C has a flaw because performing exceedingly well is relative. Amy could simply be performing exceedingly well in relation to past races. Amy's co-participants could have performed even better which is why they won medals and while Amy performed exceedingly well by her standards, it was not enough to win a medal.
Option D has no flaw. It is a logical deduction and argument just like option E.
The answer is
s waves cannot pass thru the outer core
Answer:
I believe it would be C.
Explanation:
Hope this helps! Brainliest is appreciated :)
Answer:
Primary
Explanation:
In psychology and operant conditioning, the term Primary reinforcer refers to the biological reinforcers that determine our behavior. In other words, they are part of our nature and reinforce behaviors in a natural way without a process of learning from us, since they are, by themselves, satisfying a biological need. Therefore, they have innate reinforcing qualities. Examples of these reinforcers would be: food, sex, water, sleep.
Therefore, in operant conditioning, a primary reinforcer is innately reinforcing, often by satisfying a biological need.
