Answer:
All of them
Explanation:
The king condemning his own peaceful actions to be the cause of violence is in complete contradiction to one another. An oddity occurs and the action is in complete contrast to the outcome. One cannot justify that the corresponding actions may have led to the specific outcome. such is also the case in the example:
a; condemning a robbed man for having too much money does in no way justifies the action of robbing. Blaming a source that was done only for the reason of ones own satisfaction.
b; condemning Socrates for his truth to force people to make him drink the hemlock, is as absurd as the above example.
c; condemning Jesus for his devotion to God shows that the intention of the action was completely different but the outcome was in complete contrast.
<span>They should listen to the child with full attention when the child talks about the death. <span>Sometimes
adults try to hide the topic or not explain to the children about what
happened, this is a mistake, they must explain to the children about the
death and hear and answer all the doubts they have.
I hope this infor
</span></span>
Many historians believed thag the harsh terms found against germany in the treaty of versailles helped lead to WWII
Answer:
The correct answer would be option A, Confidentiality of the individual subject's responses.
Explanation:
When a researcher invites a therapist to participate in a small focus group to discuss the perception about the troubled adolescent girls and the relationships they have with their parents. People usually don't discuss their such private problems in public and don't want to disclose their identity when discussing such problems on forums like focus groups where some therapist is present to listen to their problems. So confidentiality is a crucial concern in this. Instead of watching for the breach of confidentiality from the focus group participants, the researcher must focus on maintaining the confidentiality of the group members.
