I know this one...
the answer is in congruence <span>libido</span><span />
The correct answer is no.
Alisha was under no obligation to help Timmy, <em>there is no such thing like</em> <em>duty to rescue.</em> There is no legal requirement in the United States to help and rescue someone who is in danger. Even in extreme situation, when a person sees a person falling into a river for example, the witness of the situation is no obliged to assist with help.
There are some cases with some important exceptions: if the defendant created the peril he is obliged to come to the plaintiff's aid, if the defendant started to rescue the plaintiff, he must continue to do so, if the defendant is in a special relationship with the plaintiff ( teacher-student, worker-employer), he is under duty to rescue him.
Alisha was under no duty to inform Timmy's parents of the danger facing him <em>but she should have done it nevertheless.</em> She should at least have phoned them if she didn't have the time to stop by. She knew the boy well and she should have cared more. The need to help the boy should have come from her moral guidance and not as a sense of duty to be performed.
However, both ideas should be "tested" using "an empirical approach" to see if they hold up under scrutiny.
Empirical approach alludes to the logical strategy for inquiry and perception through experiments.
Psychology is additionally a science which is related to the thought behind empirical approach is to take your own convictions and inclinations out of the condition from real examinations. You should make determinations in view of empirical information and not what your feeling says.
Since, psychology manages sentiments and feelings, it is difficult to precisely quantify information. So it is more vital for clinicians to take after empirical approach before distributing any hypothesis or speculation.
Answer:
Ivan III
Explanation:
I'm in honors history so......
Answer: The event that occurs when one person consciously decides to induce another person to rely and act on a misrepresentation is:
Fraudulent Misrepresentation.
Explanation: Fraudulent Misrepresentation is when a person is been induced into a contract when the other party provides a misrepresentation of an important portion of the contract.