It is D i just took it and passed it
This question is missing the options. I've found the complete question online. It is the following:
Frankie is in charge of writing a script for a television show, along with six other writers. The script must be finished by the end of the week. Frankie’s co-workers all bring slightly different strengths to the table, but all are at least competent. Frankie wants to write the best possible script in the generous amount of time he has to work with. In this example, which style of leadership would be most effective for Frankie’s goals?
a. Authoritarian
b. Coaching
c. Democratic
d. Delegative
Answer:
The style of leadership that would be most effective for Frankie's goals is:
C. democratic.
Explanation:
If Frankie acts as a democratic leader, he will make the most out of each member's strengths. <u>Democratic leaders allow the group's members to be more participative when it comes to decision making. Frankie will be able to encourage them to share their ideas, views, opinions, etc. Frankie is the one who will ultimately make the final decisions, but he will certainly have more material to work with, more ideas to consider, if he listens to everyone. And, since no one in his team is especially weak, there seems to be no or little disadvantage in using the leadership style.</u>
If I properly understand the topic, it's about freedom and life in general right? if it is then this is the beginning.....
Talking about liberty and life, they are interwoven. Without life there would not be nothing to seek liberty for .......
Answer:it's intransitive Explanation:
The correct answer is answer D ("Slippery slope").
This type of fallacy presents itself when the clear core of a discussion is taken out of proportion by suggesting a possible chain of negative events that could come as a direct consequence of that core element.
In this case, the core element of the discussion is whether or not a school should determine how their students should dress, <u>which is a reasonably small imposition</u>. The argument against it suggests that if we give a school that right, they would be likely to also try imposing what students can say outside of class, <u>which is a wild exaggeration</u>. It's clear how out-of-propotion this argument is as the school would have no way of monitoring students outside school and there's no clear reason to suspect the school wants this level of control anyways.
Looking out for this type of wild exaggerations that try to relate two very different events and disguise them as a cause-and-effect realtionship is the best way of recognizing the slippery slope fallacy.
Hope this helps!
