Answer:
they were both important people duhhh
Explanation:
Ethical Speaking is a branch in Ethics which urges public speakers to engages incredible and honest speeches. It is commonly applied in politics, where candidates normally lead numerous public speeches throughout the campaign and subsequently, while in office.
Ethical Speaking requires the transmitter of the message to be honest and avoid plagiarism, or the practice of taking passages of others rhetoric or ideas into one's own speech. Political candidates normally feel tempted to say what the people "want to hear". However, this leads to negative consequences in the middle term, as they are unable to comply with the proposals they made during their speeches once they are in office.
Answer: Based on the evidence, I conclude that . . . This claim is stronger because . . . Question: During El Niño years, why is Christchurch, New Zealand's air temperature cooler than usual? Claim: The air temperature is cooler during El Niño years because ocean currents and prevailing winds change.
There is an app called WeChat in which Chinese people read news and threads for more than 40 minutes per day, according to a research. It was found that reading special coverage on hot topics increased heavily in this app, then the app started offering more systematic, coherent and well-rounded information.
At a time where penetration rate of libraries is so low, this kind of reading is supplementing the lack of public libreries.
Chinese people are one of the most people that spend more than 8 hours per week reading.
Many people talk about academic excellence — but who or what really defines this elusive quality?
Michèle Lamont, Robert I. Goldman Professor of European Studies and professor of sociology and of African and African American studies, analyzes the system of peer review in her new book “How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment” (Harvard University Press, 2009). By examining the process of scholarly evaluation, she also addresses larger questions about academia.
“In some ways studying peer evaluation and review is a point of entry into a much broader issue, which is the issue of meritocracy in American higher education,” says Lamont.
To research the book, Lamont interviewed panelists from research councils and societies of fellows who were evaluating proposals for research funding in the social sciences and the humanities.
Lamont explains that academics must constantly make evaluations, whether of scientific findings or of graduate students. Expertise, personal taste, and the perspective of the evaluator play into the decision-making process, she writes.
“A lot of what the book does is to look at what criteria people use to judge and what meaning they give to these criteria,” says Lamont. “So for instance, what do they mean by ‘significance’ and what do they mean by ‘originality’? How does the definition of ‘originality’ and ‘significance’ vary between philosophy and economics? How strong is the consensus between fields?