<span>The biggest problem is that </span>the type of the autoshaped reaction fluctuates with the sort of reinforcer that is utilized.Autoshaping some of the time called "sign tracking" is any of an assortment of exploratory methodology used to traditional conditioning. In the methodology a reinforcer is matched with a stimulus that is independent of the subjects conduct until the subject makes a reaction to the stimulus.
Omnivores eat meat and plants like a bear is a omnivore
The answer to this question is <span>when two variables are correlated, we cannot be sure what is causing the correlation.
For example, let's there is a study that found an increase in consumption in tofu lead to an increase in breast cancer.
Even if it's true that those two really correlated (let's just assume it), we wouldn't be able to know why it is correlated without further researches.</span>
Answer:
D. All of these are correct
Explanation:
Option A should be included in the email privacy policy of a company.
--- The company should define the users email address authentic and not spam. The company should provides its users a legitimate email accounts and also explains the employees what happens to the email accounts once that employee leaves the company.
Option B should be included in the email privacy policy of a company.
--- Junk and spam emails are most annoying and useless emails in the corporate world. Employees should be explained not to send any junk messages using the company's email accounts. Sending spam mails are discouraged. Sending junk emails can also harm the computer and can steal important company data from the computer.
Option C should be included in the email privacy policy of a company.
--- The company should inform the email users of the organization that once an email is sent outside the organization, the organization have no control over the email sent and cannot stop neither can it change the content of the email.
Therefore the answer is ----
D. All of these are correct
Answer:
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Explanation:
