Answer:
Vital statistics
Explanation:
In fulfilling the policy development funtion of public health departments, collection, collation and analyses of vital statistics guides policy makers on what adjustments are necessary to achieve the highest public benefit!
The American philosopher Linda Zagzebski argues that exemplars are distinguished through the emotion of admiration, and this motivating emotion allows the mapping of the moral domain related to the exemplars attributes.
Her <em>"Exemplarist Moral Theory"</em> is rooted on direct connection to exemplars of goodness which individuals identify through the emotion of admiration; like when assimilating the idea of heroes, saints, celebrities, or authority figures behaviors, incorporating them into their own behaviors; noticeable when people starts <em>mirroring </em>such personages.
Answer: Behaviorism is in direct opposition to Piaget's theories and ignores the development of thought or the mind in favor of accountable behavior. Psychological behaviorism mixes aspects of cognitive theory and development with notions of behaviorism.
Explanation: Behaviorism (or behaviourism) is a systematic perspective to understanding the behavior of humans and other animals. It takes for granted that all behaviors are either reflexes produced by a response to certain stimuli in the environment, or a consequence of that individual's history, including especially reinforcement and punishment, together with the individual's current motivational state and controlling stimuli. Although behaviorists generally accept the important role of heredity in determining behavior, they focus primarily on surrounding factors.
Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development suggests that children move in four different stages of mental development. His theory pays particular attention not only on understanding how children acquire knowledge, but also on understanding the nature of intelligence.
Answer:
"This is the direct cause of the long lines which have made millions of you spend aggravating hours waiting for gasoline.”
Explanation:
Fallacious reasoning as to do with employing an invalid rationale for the formation of an argument, that may be employed deliberately or as a result of ignorance.
In this scenario, the stand by for the shortage of gasoline had been aggrandized by noting that "millions of you spend aggravating hours waiting for gasoline."
This statement infers that a minimal amount of 2 million people had used a minimal of 2 hours standing by for gasoline, data which looks not within the range of possibility is more impossible and difficult to ascertain.