Answer:
B) trust.
Explanation:
In psychology, the term "trust" is being used by Erik Erikson in his psychosocial development. It is being used in the first stage of the theory named "trust versus mistrust".
According to Erikson, if a child's need is being fulfilled, and he or she receives the care and love which is therefore reliable, consistent, and persistent then the child will gain or develop a "sense of trust" on his or her caregivers or parents that will further help the child to gain insight for another relationship as well and feels secure if threatened.
In the question above, the given statement states that Jessica will resolve the first crisis of trust.
According to Karl Marx, social change results from the efforts of <span>the powerless to gain power. The correct option among all the options that are given in the question is the first option or option "a". I hope that this is the answer that you were looking for and it has actually come to your help.</span>
Answer:
Conflict theory
Explanation:
In sociology, conflict theory states that society is in a permanent conflict because of competition for resources.
Conflict theorists focus on <u>inequality and power</u>, saying that society creates inequality conditions for people and this, in the long term, generates insatisfaction and social conflicts.
Where does this inequality comes from?
<u>From the people who have more power</u> and dominance and thus, they are the ones who maintain social order by creating arrangements perpetuating these differences.
In the example, the social theorist is asked to explain why people in different occupations have different incomes and he says that this is an unfair arrangement that has been created by people with more power.
So, first, this theorist <u>focuses on power</u>, then he mentions the inequality on incomes has been <u>created by this people who have more power</u>. Therefore, we can conclude that this social theorist is most likely to adhere to the conflict theory
a. thermal power
Because it use heat energy
Answer:
Yes, Quebec should be a country.
Canada is a federation, meaning that its citizens have to pay taxes for both the federal (canadian) government and the provincial (quebec) government. This split makes it harder for the people of Quebec to strategically invest in its own industries. For example, Quebec has long ago nationalized hydroelectricity making the state a leader in green energy. When Quebecers decided to do so, the canadian government refused to invest even a single dollar in the project. Quebec’s prime minister at that time had to go see the americans to ask for a sufficient loan. What a shame it was to the canadian government going against such a nice project! Fast forward to now, Nova Scotia government (another province located next to Quebec being part of the canadian confederation) has the project to built all the infrastructure to export hydroelectricity to the US… and guess what? Canadian Government is totally in favor of the idea and willing to fund the project with fresh capital, part of that capital coming from taxes paid by Quebecers. So Quebec taxes will help fund a competitor since Quebec is already exporting a lot of energy to their US partners while it had absolutely no help when they built their own hydroelectricity project.
This example is just one of the many examples that Quebecers have had to endure over the past decades. When the financial crisis happened in 08-09, Ontario’s auto industry have been bailed out for more than $10 Billion from the Canadian Government (again, part of this money - roughly 20% - came from Quebec’s taxes paid to the federal government). At that same time, Quebec was struggling with its paper/pulp industry and the federal government injected less than 100M$ in the industry to help it. Now Bombardier, one of the great engeneering business of Quebec is struggling, and guess what? Quebec has to inject all of the money to help them since canadian government won't do a single thing.
A lot of the people in Quebec stand against the building of pipelines that would allow dirty oil sands to cross the eastern part of the country for international exportation. Canadians want Quebec to accept the pipeline since it would help the western part of the country to export/sell its dirty oil internationally. As a province, Quebec doesn’t have any legal capacity to oppose to such project while this goes a lot against their willingness. If Quebec was a country, it could oppose to such thing and participate to a greater extend to a cleaner planet. Quebecers have all the capacity and knowledge to invest massively in clean energy and stop using oil for transport over a short timeframe. The only things that is keeping them away is the fact that it does not have control over all its revenues while the federal government have a totally different gameplan.
Being a country would allow Quebecers to gain 100% control over their taxes and would leave them with more money to do good things for the whole planet. We would be leaders in clean energy instead of subsidizing the dirty oilsands in the western part of the country. Our army would be one of peace keeping and territory protection and our peace keeping message would be heard amongst UN and UNESCO. We would be a much better leader amongst nations willing the reduce greenhouse gas instead of financing oil sands. Our engineering firms like Hydro-Quebec would be venturing project like electrification of transport.
Not only Quebec should be a country but people all around the world should support them in their quest for the building of a great new country.
