Answer:
either-or fallacy
Explanation:
In the either or fallacy a situation is presented as the only alternative of another situation. But in fact there are other alternatives of a situation.
Here, according to Marty unless people get rid of guns they will have to face the same situation of gun violence that people faced in Kentucky, Arkansas, and Colorado. He has not considered what might happen if the guns are still present. There are countries where the existance of guns and violence is not related.
Hence, Marty is using the either-or fallacy.
Ice wedging is the type of weathering. this works because the ice in the crack expands causing the rock to crack or expand even more
Answer:
The psychologist is using the Personality Assesment.
Explanation:
In psychological field, personality assesment is a process of evaluation which objective is to determine and identiy stable enduring characteristics. Personality is defined by a group of stable characteristics a human has, and how a person relates with others and with the enviroment according to that.
Often a personality assesment can help predicte future behavior, like for instance if a person is capable or would succeed in a specific job.
<span>To divide we the people to weaken us, set us against each other with blame games and propaganda. Party loyalty blinders keep us from watching too closely what our own party representatives are doing against our own interests.
Like professional wrestlers they appear to be bitter rivals in public but are the best of friends behind closed doors. They have led us to think that only someone from their parties can win an election. If we vote for a third party candidate we have "thrown our vote away" on someone who stands no chance of winning and let that "evil other party" candidate win. We feel compelled to vote for the "lesser" of the two evils being offered.
Consider this: Both parties of the Senate said that the TARP bill lacked oversight to protect the taxpayer's money (concerning the original 3 page one passed by the House of Representatives). They claimed they were going to add protection and oversight to it. Then behind closed doors they added 137 pages of earmark spending and NO oversight or protection. Bush signed it and they closed the 110 Session of Congress knowing that they had an automatic pay raise in place. Both parties were involved so no evil other party blame games could be played.
Instead they faked outrage when the AIG bonus news came out and blamed the Management for not following rules which they had failed to put into the TARP bill in the first place. Watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6KRXnYgu...</span>
Answer:
C
Explanation:
to me it just seemed logical
