None of these conclusions is valid.
- The first one implies that people either think that their employer should cover part of the health insurance costs (as said in the original sentence), or they think that the employer should pay 100%. This is not correct because there are other possible opinions people can have, like thinking that the employer shouldn't pay for anything, for example.
- The second conclusion is invalid for the same reason: it implies that people can only either think that the employer should pay a large part, or that the employer shouldn't pay anything. It is not considering other options.
- The third conclusion does not work either because it is referring to what people think about <em>the amount </em>of the costs themselves, whereas the original topic was <em>how</em> they are paid for.
Answer:
Becker points out that people react differently to the same act depending on the social context and this influences the label that is placed on the act. Perhaps an extreme example would be the act of killing someone. In the vast majority of cases this would be labelled as murder: highly deviant.
Explanation:
Becker defined deviance as a social creation in which “social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders.” Becker grouped behaviour into four categories: falsely accused, conforming, pure deviant and secret deviant.
The Kansas River stop was most likely the most dangerous stop of the Oregon Trail.
Rivers crossing was usually dangerous for settlers with unpredictable tides ran the risk of drowning, losing livestock, losing important supplies, or overturning wagons.
