Gezon and Kottak argue that the relatively high incidence of expanded family households among poorer North Americans is
"an adaptation to poverty".
A significantly more typical response from researchers, in any case, was to recommend that discussing the way of life of the underclass was commensurate to "faulting the victim." Bad conduct and poor decisions, in this view, were a justifiable adaptation to poverty and the absence of chance in individuals' lives. In spite of the fact that my examination on the underclass was given a neighborly gathering, the greater part of the scholarly network has mixed around the view that awful practices are a result, as opposed to a reason, of poverty.
you onlky commit to things you know you can do
I want to live in kenya because of all the culture
Answer:
The response that best illustrates the one-to-one principle is:
D. Simon, who says, "1, 2, C, D, F."
Explanation:
<u>The one-to-one principle focuses on the importance of attributing only one counting tag to each counted object. The counting tag can be a number, or a letter, for instance.</u> Simply put, the child should not repeat counting tags, such as in "2, 3, 3". They should be able to associate one counting tag to one of the objects. Also, <u>they need to be able to coordinate partitioning and tagging. That means the child must be able to differentiate the objects that have been counted from those that haven't.</u> Notice that, among the responses, <u>Simon</u> offered the one that showed this principle. He <u>was the only one who not only counted all the five objects in the array, but who also assigned only one tag to each object. The fact that he mixed numbers and letters does not affect this principle.</u>
Answer:
what are the notes attache them
Explanation:
