The correct answer is A. Class inclusion
Explanation:
Jean Piaget was an important Swiss psychologist mainly known for this theory of cognitive development that involved different stages and developments. In this theory "class inclusion" refers to the ability of children to consider an object or any other element can be included in multiple categories at the same time, for example, a dog can be classified into the category of animals, mammals, pets, domestic, etc. According to Piaget "Class inclusion" is mainly developed in the concrete operational stage (7 to 11 years) because before this, it is difficult for children to consider two aspects of an element at the same time and because of this, they are unable to recognize one element belongs to two categories.
This occurs in the case of four-year-old Meg because she does not consider marbles are classified within glass category and besides this, they can be either striped or white marbles. Instead, she considers glass category as different to marbles and because of this she believes neither strip or white marbles fit into the category of glass and therefore she answers there are more striped marbles.
Answer:
anthropocentrism, philosophical viewpoint arguing that human beings are the central or most significant entities in the world. This is a basic belief embedded in many Western religions and philosophies.
Explanation:
I believe the answer is: Grief
In psychology, grief refers to the process of coping with the overwhelming emotions that created when we loss someone that we care about.
During this process, most individuals would most likely unable to use the social and cognitve skills normally, which would affect their overall behavior
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.
