Answer:
1. Invalid and weak
2. Invalid and strong.
Explanation:
The first argument does not present statements that support and justify it and for that reason, we can consider it a weak argument. In addition, the conclusion of the argument is not consistent with its premise, presenting a fallacy and causing wrong reasoning, which shows that the argument is invalid.
Similarly, the second argument has a conclusion that contradicts the information shown above, which invalidates the argument. However, the argument presents additional information that can support and justify it, for this reason, we can consider it a strong argument.
The correct answer is C. Physical attractiveness.
Explanation
The matching hypothesis is a theory about interpersonal relationships that states that people tend to mate with people who are similar in physical attractiveness. This theory argues that before mating, people assess themselves, establish their level of physical attractiveness and establish characteristics for potential partners who share this same level of attraction. So, the correct answer is C. Physical attractiveness.
The complete phrase is "The matching hypothesis suggests that people will form relationships with others who are similar in physical attractiveness"
Answer:
Secondary reinforcers
Explanation:
A secondary reinforcer is a type of stimulus or situation that functions as a reinforcer because it has been paired with another stimulus that also functions as a reinforcer. In this case, the reinforcer is the good grade. In turn, the secondary reinforcers are the praise and the money, both of which seem to be effective with Curtis.
<u>Answer:</u>
This case was not meant to be a precedent and It was decided in a 5–4 vote.
Option: (A) and (B)
<u>Explanation:
</u>
- The Bush v/s Gore case of 2000 was unusual because the Supreme Court decision in the case ordering the initial count to be considered as final brought a wave of mixed responses throughout the United States.
- The decision was voted 5-4 by the Supreme Court bench of 9 justices hearing the case.
- The critics interpreted from the judgment issued that the case was not meant to be taken as a precedent for any cases in the future.
