It depends on what your doing (sitting or walking). But I would go for TRUE.
Answer:
The inference that is best supported by the passage is: A. Prior to the "Click it or Ticket" law, motorist could not be stopped simply for not waring a seatbelt."
Explanation:
In the passage is very clear that in the new law motorist can be now pulled over and ticketed for not wearing seatbelts (later in the passage it implies that's the reason why lawyers and citizens' gorups are protesting), which implies that before the state legislature passed the law this was not a reason to be pulled over even though this is not stated in the passage, the entire text circles around the novelty of pulling over motorist for not wearing seatbelt, therefore the best option is A especially because that is the main idea of the text.
Answer:Negative reinforcement
Explanation:
Negative reinforcement is based on operant conditioning theory. In negative reinforcement a positive behavior is enhanced by taking away a negative outcome or eliminating an aversive stimulus.
Aversive stimuli is everything that brings someone physcally or psychologically discomfort.
Negative reinforcement then means someone is able to avoid aversive stimuli prior to its occurrence. It is like taking prevention rather cure so you eliminate what ever can bring you a negative outcome before the negative outcome occurs.
