Answer:
Correct answer is a. nationalism.
Explanation:
Correct answer is A as it is a way how they wanted to create a national state, that will be free from influence of other empires that were surrounding them.
B is not correct as communism was an idea that spread across Russia during WW1.
C and D are not correct as imperialism and militarism were policies that were led by greatest European forces such as Germany.
<span>The scenario in which Hannah who is a strict parent, and does not recall that she herself got drunk at her senior prom, which does not "fit" with the way she currently views herself is an example of </span>the Pollyanna principle.
The Pollyanna principle is a psychological tendency for people to remember pleasant items more accurately than unpleasant. It is <span>also called the positivity bias.</span>
B) Cavaliers is your answer
Hope this helps! :)
Answer:
Modest short term deterrent, but will need mass executions to be effective
Explanation:
The question has already been answered but I guess you need an explanation.
In the deterrence theory by Professor Land and his colleagues, they assumes that offenders are rational, I.e. they know the law and the penalties attached to defaulting the law..
They're are three points to take note of in this study;
1. For execution to have a deterrent effect, then it means a huge number of execution must have taken place
2. Most of any deterrent effect of execution of homicide occurs immediately after the execution is made public
3. 5 to 10 homicides would deterred in a year if there are 10 to 20 executions using 0.5 homicides deterred on a monthly basis.
Answer: avoider
Explanation:
This is a type of person who despises confronting situations or issues they would rather they sit down properly and deal with the issue in a more calmer way .
We all hate confrontation however it is necessary sometimes in order to tackle the issue and get it done with other wise we may find ourselves delaying issues or banking them which on its own is also not healthy.
Michael wants to work with what he already knows so that he can avoid the conflict that may arise from discussing what is not known.