The difference between 2D and 3D thinking is that two-dimensional thinking refers to flat, representative concepts. The three-dimensional reaches a deeper meaning.
<h3 /><h3>What is 3D thinking?</h3>
It means a way of thinking more broadly beyond your converging thoughts to solve problems. In other words, it constitutes a form of orientation and development of thoughts in an expanded way, generating innovation.
The 3D thinking expands the individual's vision beyond what is already identifiable and established, generating creativity and critical thinking.
Therefore, 3D thinking can be a useful skill for academic training and in the workplace, where there is a need to identify solutions to complex problems.
Find out more about critical thinking here:
brainly.com/question/6034421
Answer:
The state should have more power because we the citizens have more control over it. If the church were to have more power it could become corrupt more easily as well as it is only really in charge by a select few like the pope and other cardinals.
Explanation:
All multiple choice
Probably not crush your grade overall
Answer:
They were fed up with British rule
Explanation:
They had no voice in their own affairs, and wanted to have a representative in parliament or anything that gave them a voice.
Answer:
The decisions in Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Mapp v. Ohio are very important to defendants in criminal proceedings today because they enlarged defendants' rights in criminal trials and investigations.
Thus, Miranda v. Arizona refers to the fact that those accused of a crime must know their rights prior to being questioned by the police, that is, that everything they say can be used against them and that they have the right to consult a lawyer.
For its part, Gideon v. Wainwright guaranteed the defendants the right to have a lawyer, even when they could not afford it on their own financial means. In this way, a defendant is not left legally unprotected for not being able to afford a lawyer, since it is the state that grants him one for free.
Finally, Mapp v. Ohio prohibits the use of illegitimately obtained evidence in criminal proceedings. Thus, non-compliance with the Fourth Amendment (and the consequent search without a warrant) renders the evidence obtained in this way not admissible in court.
