C because I know the answer and I’m a history teacher
Answer:
Deductive Reasoning
Explanation:
The given condition is an example of deductive reasoning. Two arguments are related that bring a valid conclusion given the conditions hold true to both.
Deductive Reasoning: Process of making logical arguments by facts and logic.
Deduction:
Condition 1--- Jason can run 100 meter in 15 seconds
Condition 2--- Sarah is faster at racing any distance
Conclusion--- Sarah can run 100 meter in less than 15 seconds
Reason: Since Sarah is faster than Jason in any race therefore she can win run faster than him at any given condition. Jason runs 100 meter in 15 seconds which means Sarah can run the same distance in less than 15 seconds as she is faster than him.
It has been reported in a research by Roy Baumeister and Julie Exline that self-control temporarily weakens after exertion, replenishes with rest, and becomes stronger with exercise.
Self-control is an ability to subdue impulses or to regulations one's emotions, thoughts, and actions in order to fulfill specific (longer-term) goals, especially when faced with temptations and impulses. This enables a person to plan, evaluate alternative actions instead of getting carried away by impulses, and prevents him/her from behaving in a way that he/she might regret later on. Willpower is the ability to exert self-control.
Answer: Ultramares corporation v. Touche established Ultramares doctrine. Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that scienter is required before CPAs can be held liable.
Explanation:
All the options except the above are true. Ultramares corporation v. Touche did establish the Ultramares doctrine.
United States v. Natelli sentenced two CPAs to prison for a year, in addition to fines, for violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Bily v. Arthur Young did not uphold the restatement doctrine. The restatement doctrine restatement doctrine makes an auditor liable to people who rely on the quality of his work be they his clients or third parties. Two high courts ruled that auditors are not liable to third parties who use their work but only to the party that contracted their work.
However, Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that an allegation of scienter (an intention to deceive) is not required before CPAs can be held liable as long as the actions constitute actual deception.
While rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act states the presence of scienter as a requirement to commit an offense, the court ruled against the statute by eliminating the Scienter clause from criminal statute and ruled against Ernst & Ernst.
