Explanation:
An increase in the number of social grants to teenage mothers is likely to have negative consequences as listed:
i) Grants make people lazy and dependent on the government
The teen mothers will not be motivated to become self-reliant by looking for work. Instead they rely on the government grants to acquire capital which they use for their needs.
ii) The child grant increases teenage pregnancy.
This is where teen mothers may become pregnant intentionally to access the grants.
iii) Recipients misuse grant money.
The teen mothers may use the grants to buy drugs and abusing of alcohol. The monies are primarily used for food and some basic non-food items such as school fees and uniforms, health and transport.
iv) Social Life
When the number of social grants to teen mothers are increased, their social lives are impacted negatively. These teen mothers see themselves as pariahs and burdens to the society. They are likely to withdraw from social life due to the shame and low self-esteem they often experience.
v) Financial Life
Due to the fact that these teen mothers often do not have stable jobs, their financial lives are uncertain. They depend on the social grants for their upkeep. If these grants are increased many teen mothers do not perceive the value of looking for employment.
vi) Education
Since most of the teen mothers drop out of school after they become pregnant, their education ceases. Increasing the number of social grants discourages them from completing their studies. They reason that since they are getting 'free money' there is no need for further education.
The answer would be: <span>Decide upon / implement your solution
The last step of the problem-solving process COULD ONLY be done after we gathered all the data and possible approach that could be used for the decision.
After we utilize the data and the possibilities that we have than we should pick which options that will help up the most in achieving our goal and monitor the implementing process
</span>
Answer:
If the outcomes of other procedure that were used are similar to the omitted procedure by giving relevant evidence.
Explanation:
Generally, it is common practice to use the same procedure for a given set of actions to obtain the desired result. This serves as a routine work and the outcome is always the same if the same procedure is followed each time. However, if there exists an alternative method or procedure that will give a similar outcome to the omitted procedure, there is no need to perform the omitted method/procedure.
Although I believe both Henry and Irma could work for both a manufacturing company and the government as well, I consider more accurate the last statement "<em>They likely have the same employer since both are employed by a Manufacturing company</em>" even though I think they could also have the same or different employer too; its just that the previous statement fails in its predicate when implies that only one of them could work for a manufacturing company or the government; and I believe they both could work for either the government and a manufacturing company.
Since a M.Company could use environmental consulting services to produce <em>eco-friendly</em> items and control the quality of its production; and the government could issue environmental policies and be concerned about controlling the quality of its performance and the outcome of its projects.
Answer:
c) by antitrust laws.
Explanation:
Sherman antitrust act of 1890
The Act authorizes the Department of Justice to bring suits to enjoin (i.e. prohibit) conduct violating the Act, and additionally authorizes private parties injured by conduct violating the Act to bring suits for treble damages (i.e. three times as much money in damages as the violation cost them.