Answer:
Your memory will change, outside influence will help alter them, that is why they are separated
Year's ago the was a class assignment or demonstration, that proved it, they staged a realistic purse snatching, in front of the class, the only ones in on it were the two performers ( victim and perpetrator) and the professor, and one mole, then the police responded in real-time, and conducted an investigation, most people saw the event differently and even described the subject differently, the mole made. suggestions like I think he had a red shirt and long hair( he had a blue shirt and normal length hair) and most agreed with the mole, some saw facial hair, some did not, it was obvious that suggestions from others influence what people thought they had observed, ( I do not recall the college this was conducted at, as it was many year's ago )
Explanation:
Hope this helps
Answer:
It should be stated clearly toward the beginning of the speech. What does CAPOW Stand for. Currency, authorship, purpose, objectivity, writing style.
Two examples of real-life instances where a person might engage in an error in reasoning and, as a result, come to a faulty conclusion about something that they observed are:
1. Concluding that a person is harsh because his face is not cheerful.
2. Predicting that it will rain because the weather is gloomy.
<h3>What is a Faulty Conclusion?</h3>
A faulty conclusion is reached when the pattern of reasoning is faulty. Before a conclusion can be reached on a matter, it is vital to test the observations beyond all reasonable doubts.
If this is not done, the probability of reaching a faulty conclusion will be high.
Learn more about faulty conclusions here:
brainly.com/question/2141635
Answer:
conduct that breaks a law where a crinimal penalty
Explanation:
Criminal conduct means conduct that breaks a law where a criminal penalty can apply. Sometimes a certain action (or failure to act) can be both a crime and trigger rights to civil damages or compensation as well.
The positivist thesis does not say that law’s merits are unintelligible, unimportant, or peripheral to the philosophy of law. It says that they do not determine whether laws or legal systems exist. Whether a society has a legal system depends on the presence of certain structures of governance, not on the extent to which it satisfies ideals of justice, democracy, or the rule of law. What laws are in force in that system depends on what social standards its officials recognize as authoritative; for example, legislative enactments, judicial decisions, or social customs. The fact that a policy would be just, wise, efficient, or prudent is never sufficient reason for thinking that it is actually the law, and the fact that it is unjust, unwise, inefficient or imprudent is never sufficient reason for doubting it. According to positivism, law is a matter of what has been posited (ordered, decided, practiced, tolerated, etc.). Austin thought the thesis “simple and glaring”. While it is probably the dominant view among analytically inclined philosophers of law, it is also the subject of competing interpretations together with persistent criticisms and misunderstandings.
