Explanation:
Social Darwinists believe in “survival of the fittest”—the idea that certain people become powerful in society because they are innately better. Social Darwinism has been used to justify imperialism, racism, eugenics and social inequality at various times over the past century and a half.
<u>E. Establish clear processes,</u> when it comes to collaborative writing
<u>Explanation:</u>
Two or more persons involve in writing a document is known as collaborative writing. This is also known as <u>group writing</u>.
Collaborative writing is commonly followed in many business forums and also in technical writing. During collaborative writing, the writers must establish clear process.
Collaboration helps in expanding the ideas and thoughts of the topic. Collaboration reduces complexity and difficulty in performing the task. Collaboration writing helps the weaker writers to grow their skills.
Answer:
The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) is a constitutional body mandated with controlling corruption and investigating financial irregularities and corruption involving public officials. ... It aims to crack down on corruption using a systems-based approach.
Explanation:
Answer: C In a 100-meter race, two of Amy's co-participants won Silver and Bronze and she performed exceedingly well; it follows that Amy won Gold.
Explanation:
There is a flaw in the evidence presented by the lawyer, several flaws actually:
- The client could have been the culprit and left the main door and garage open as an alibi.
- There is no mention of there being an altercation with a thief that cost the wife her life.
- There is no mention of things being stolen to prove that it was a thief.
The attorney used one logic and deduced a flawed conclusion from it so the option that is similar has to do the same as the above.
Option A is not applicable here as blame was taken by the perpetrator.
Option B is not flawed as one would be expected to be late in such circumstances.
Option C has a flaw because performing exceedingly well is relative. Amy could simply be performing exceedingly well in relation to past races. Amy's co-participants could have performed even better which is why they won medals and while Amy performed exceedingly well by her standards, it was not enough to win a medal.
Option D has no flaw. It is a logical deduction and argument just like option E.
