Answer: true
Explanation:
True, because they described why they were breaking away from Great Britain, and all the unfairness they had went through. They described how they felt in the unfairness, and therefore, they were breaking away from Britain.
Erik Homberger Erikson (born Erik Salomonsen; 15 June 1902 – 12 May 1994) was a German-American developmental psychologist and psychoanalyst known for his theory on psychological development of human beings. He may be most famous for coining the phrase identity crisis.
Answer:
Option A
Explanation:
It is a direct approach to conflict.
Martha thinks it is better to get angry rather than hide or suppress her feelings, so that her husband knows she really cares about the issue.
What makes option A the best answer, is because she does not want to hide the details from the issue, she prefers to let it out of the bag than keeping it in and it keeps burning until the un-usual happens which is not always the best method to resolve conflicts.
It is direct because she believes its better her husband knows she is angry and then settle the matter than allowing the issue to keep burning inside of her. it is direct because the matter made her angry and she is expressing it other than neglecting it.
Answer:
Monitoring his study methods.
Explanation:
Monitoring -
It refers to the practice of tracking any of the activity , is referred to as monitoring .
The method is used in many field like in companies , business , society , studies etc.
The method involves proper trading of the task from time to time , in a very continuous manner .
Hence , from the given scenario of the question ,
Franco is managing his studies in a very effective manner in order to make sure that whatever he studies sits in his mind by taking test .
Hence , the correct answer is Monitoring his study methods.
Answer:
C.S. Lewis states that moral law is not a simply convention . He says "there are two reasons for saying it belongs to the same class as mathematics. The first is, as I said in the first chapter, that though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great — not nearly so great as most people imagine — [...].The other reason is this. When you think about these differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? Have any of the changes been improvements? If not, then of course there could never be any moral progress. Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better. If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality."
Then the Law of Human Nature is compared as a standard or universal truth: "he moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others."
Reference: Lewis, C.S. “Some Objections .” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 1952
