I believe the answer is: criticism
By making criticism, we could expose our partner on his/her weaknesses and focusing on that weakness to evoke a certain negative emotion. By doing this, the focus of their discussion could be strayed from our own weakness/insecurities and could be used to avoid responsibility when we're in a fight with our partner.
Answer:
A) judging, criticizing, and placing blame.
Explanation:
First of all, the social worker is not even considering the possibility that Andrew could have been fired without justification, or that he could get his job back, he is placing blame exclussively on the worker (Andrew).
Besides, he is judging Andrew as an alcoholic, or at least, as a person who has serious problems with alcohol consumption (so serious to the point of going to work drunk and being fired because of that), and finally, the social worker is criticizing the way Andrew is dealing with his possible alcoholism, because he is telling Andrew that he is not even Aware of what alcohol is doing to him.
This is a condition having tail in a crack.
Explanation:
In the given question, the scenario is that there is a legal restriction, called as entailment, with the Cunningham family, while selling a piece of their land for the purpose of gaining money or profit. According to the legal term, entailment, the owner of the land or house is unable to sell it for profit. The property can only be transferred to the other member of the family.
So now it is a logical example that having a tail in the crack. It means that when tail of an animal is stuck in a crack, that animal is unable to move. So this example best illustrates the situation of the Cunningham Family, as they are facing the entailment, and stuck with the land which they own and which they cannot sell for profit. They do not have any other choice than staying with the land, which means their tail is stuck in the crack.
Learn more about entailment at:
brainly.com/question/13568955
#LearnWithBrainly
This was the first five year plan-the answer is b.
The five year plan lasted from 1928 to 1932 and it was centered around economic goals specified by the then leader of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin. It focused on the industrialisation of the production of food, which before was done by farmers manually
A deductive argument is one that the arguer wants to be deductively valid, that really is, to provide a guarantee that the conclusion is correct if the premises are correct.
This principle may alternatively be put as follows: in a deductive argument, the premises are designed to give such strong evidence for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be wrong. A valid (deductively) argument is one in which the premises successfully ensure the conclusion. If a valid argument has true premises, it is also said to be sound. All arguments are either valid or invalid, and either sound or unsound; there is no such thing as being partially valid.
Therefore, the answer is deductive argument.
To know more about deductive argument click here:
brainly.com/question/1803030
#SPJ4
