OPTIONS:
a. Force b. Avoidance c. Smoothing d. Compromise
Answer:
a. Force
Explanation:
Force is a method of conflict resolution in which someone of authority or that occupies a position of power, enforces a viewpoint or decision on a conflicting issue in order to end such conflict as quick as possible. It produces a kind of win-lose solution especially when it has to do with making an urgent issue that brings up unnecessary conflicts that can be detrimental to a team. Issues that puts important principles at stake are better resolved using force to compel parties to comply.
Mark should use force as a method of conflict resolution to resolve the conflict among members of his team.
Answer:
pearl harbor i didnt read the question i just saw japan and america and bombing
Explanation:
Answer:
(C) Planes are not a free-wheel system because they can fly only between airports, which are less convenient for consumers than the high-speed train's stations would be.
Explanation:
The letter C presents an argument strong enough to weaken more seriously the argument presented above. This is because airplanes offer more convenience, practicality and agility to the group of consumers that are at stake, which are those consumers who prefer freewheeling systems, which do not have fixed routes. In addition to airplanes that fit this pattern, they offer greater convenience and comfort to consumers.
10. is the Danube river 22. is tge Mediterranean sea 11. is the Rhine river
Explanation:
that is all I know your welcome
Answer:
C. Pure comparative negligence
Explanation:
Pure Comparative negligence is a form of partial legal defense. In this, a person who is partially involved in a damage is able to recover in negligence based claims. The person is able to recover the claim based on his involvement in the cause of injury.
<u>In the given case, the plaintiff is able to recover the damages under the pure comparative negligence. Because under this legal defense only, the plaintiff is able to recover the claims in partial negligence based claims. In the given case, the child's parents are more liable (80%) than the company because it clearly stated that toy is for 10 years and above kids</u>.
So, the correct answer is option C.
