Answer:
The answer is b. negative reinforcement.
Explanation:
In operant conditioning, negative reinforcement is an unpleasant consequence to an action, which prevents an individual from repeating the behaviour, or encourages him to take an opposite course of action.
In the example, Matt knows the consquence of not buckling is the irratating noise, so he is more likely to do the opposite.
C.) To fuel space exploration programs
C is the correct answer because through the process of elimination, we know that European countries are trying to find energy sources the reduce the amount of air pollution, so A is not correct. Also, we know B is not correct because since fossil fuels aren't always widely available in Europe, drastically running out, and the population of the continent keeps increasing, European countries are struggling to keep up with the demand for fossil fuels. As a result, they are trying to find cheap, renewable energy resources to keep up with the demands of the ever-growing population. Let's skip to D. D is not correct at all because European countries actually <em>do </em>want to find new renewable energy sources, for the reasons stated in A and B. By investing in them, European countries are funding scientists to help harness the power of nature (solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc...). Let's go back to C. Yes, a huge amount of fossil fuels are used for fuel in a rocket, and scientists may be trying to find ways to use renewable energy instead of precious fossil fuels, but is that a main reason for European countries investing in new sources of energy? No, it may be a <em>minor </em>reason, not even a reason at all, but definitely <em>not </em>a main reason. After looking at answer choices A, B, and D, you can conclude C is not a reason for why European countries have invested in new sources of energy.
It should of been to pay for things they didnt have so he taxed the people
Answer:
True
Explanation:
Charge is conserved. If, along a wire, the current at one point was bigger than the current at a later point, that would imply charge is building up somewhere in between the two points. That would eventually (quickly) cause the wire to explode, and the wires aren’t exploding. So, charge isn’t building up, and this means along a single piece of wire the current is always the same.
If there is a junction in the wire, where the wire splits into two, then the current incoming equals the current outgoing, for the same reason that charge can’t build up at the junction. So, if current coming in is i1 , and in the two outgoing wires the currents out are i2 and i3, then current conservation implies
i1=i2+i3
In fact, by changing the definitions of the currents so that incoming current is positive on each wire, and outgoing current is negative on each wire, we can write the current conservation equation for a general junction with n wires as
0=∑nk=1ik
The answer is C. The Freedman’s Bureau
