Answer:
In Susan Sandren's case, the correct demand development will be:
d. Susan's family will win because of a design defect.
Explanation:
The case is a little bit complicated but the correct development is the next: the industry has an <em>"error range"</em> named <u>manufacturing tolerance</u>, which allows that a product be sold with<em> a difference in measurements or technical characteristics between 5 or 10%</em> depending of the industry or type of product but, when that error range put a life in danger or remove a life, the fault owns the industry, because in the case of the product would have the correct measurement, that would not occur.
Answer:
That statement is true
Explanation:
Extended family refers to a type of family that allowed the family relatives to live within the same household.
In western countries, one family usually only consist of a Father, a mother, and their children. The grandparents of the children usually live on different house. (or in foster house)
In ancient Chines society Grandparents and the uncles/aunts of these children tend to live in the same household as them. This tradition even still exist in large portion of Asian families today.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options attached, we can say the following.
I think the author titled the chapter "Jim Crow and the Detested Number Ten," because that was the number of seats reserved for white people, Just whites. These were the buses in Montgomery, Alabama.
Yes, believe it or not, just white people could seat in the first four rows.
These were the terrible times of the Jim Crow laws in the South. Black people had limited civil rights and had separated facilities from the facilities that white people used.
That is why the civil rights movement had to overcome many difficulties, as we can learn to form the civil rights fight from Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
I do not know what you are asking soo here is the history of Oliver Hill:
Oliver Hill's sharp legal mind helped shred the segregation-era doctrine of “separate but equal.” He is best known for his role in Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court decision striking down segregated schools.Hill was a constant thorn in the side of hypocrisy, in the battle against segregation. His team of lawyers filed more civil rights suits in Virginia than the total filed in all other Southern states during the segregation era. At one point, the team had 75 cases pending. The Washington Post once estimated that Hill's team was responsible for winning more than $50 million in higher pay, new buses and better schools for black teachers and students. Threatening phone calls came to the Hill home so frequently in those days that Hill and his wife, Berensenia Walker, did not allow their son, Oliver Hill, Jr., to answer the telephone until he was a young man. Hatemongers burned a cross in the family's front yard. Hill persevered. Oliver W. Hill was born Oliver White in Richmond in 1907. His mother remarried and Hill took his stepfather's last name. The Hill family moved to Roanoke and then to Washington, D.C., where he graduated from Dunbar High School. Hill attended Howard University Law School with Thurgood Marshall, the The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense Fund's founder. They became fast friends. Extremely talented, bright and ambitious, they raced neck-and-neck toward excellence. When they graduated in 1933, Hill was second in the class to Marshall. Remaining good friends, Hill became a cooperating attorney with the Legal Defense Fund and joined Marshall in filing one of the five suits that won the Brown case, that ultimately dismantled legal segregation. Hill's early years as a lawyer were inauspicious. At one point he abandoned his practice and worked in Washington as a waiter. He later moved to Richmond, and began to practice there in 1939. He won his first civil rights case in 1940 in Norfolk. That decision ordered the school system to provide equal pay for black teachers. In April 1951, Hill and his partner, Spottswood W. Robinson III, received word that students at all-black R.R. Moton High School in Farmville had walked out of the leaky, poorly heated buildings that served as their school. Hill was one of the trial lawyers in the resulting desegregation lawsuit, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County which would be decided under Brown v. the Board of Education. Hill's involvement in his community went beyond the courtroom. In 1948, he won a seat on the Richmond City Council, becoming the first African American elected to the City Council since Reconstruction Days. After the Brown decision, Hill worked briefly for the Federal Housing Administration, first as Assistant to the Federal Housing Commissioner in 1961 and later, as Federal Housing Commissioner in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. After leaving his Federal Government post in 1966, Hill resumed his law practice in Richmond, Virginia as a partner in the law firm of Hill, Tucker and Marsh. Hill has served as an officer or member on the board of many national, state and local organizations, including the National Legal Committee of the NAACP, the National Bar Association, the Southern Conference for Human Welfare, the National Association for Intergroup Relations Officials, the Virginia State Bar Bench Bar Relations Committee and the Old Dominion Bar Association, which he co-founded. Hill's accomplishments as a civil rights advocate and litigator have earned him many awards and citations including the “Lawyer of the Year Award” from the National Bar Association in 1959, the “Simple Justice Award” from the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund in 1986, the American Bar Association “Justice Thurgood Marshall Award” in 1993 and the “Presidential Medal of Freedom” in 1999. Most recently, he received the American Bar Association Medal for 2000, the National Bar Association &lbquo;Hero of the Law” award in August 2000, and in September 2000, he and other LDF lawyers were honored with the ”Harvard Medal of Freedom“ for their role in the Brown v. Board of Education decision.
ANSWER: CRITICAL LISTENING
EXPLANATION:
Critical listening refers to the form of listening that involves analysis, indebt thinking and making judgment.
However, critical listening occurs when an individual want to comprehend what is being said by the other person, but simultaneously have some responsibility or reason to evaluate what the speaker is saying and the manner it's being said.
Critical listening helps in assumptions evaluation, and other important information during the interaction. In critical listening, the listener undertakes systematic thinking and reasoning, and this allows the listener to derive whether there's any evidence in the speaker’s speech. Persons with critical listening do not use their opinions to adhere to arguments that are proved to be illogical. They establish facts to evaluate the argument put forth by the speaker, rather than mere opinions. Hence, it involves making a decision in problem-solving procedures.
Conclusively, a person with critical thinking skills are capable of making good decisions in proffering solutions to problems. Hence, these skills helps to increase productivity, laying emphasis on how critical listening plays a vital role during communication.
