1.they support their child at a sport event.
2.they know more about them than their best friend 'cause they've been there since day 1.
The correct answer to this question is the following.
Although there is no question, just a statement, we can assume that the probable question could be "What was the main effect of the law cited here?"
If that is the case, then the correct answer would be C) It protected the legal rights of people with disabilities.
The other options of the question were A) It provided funding to states to retrofit public facilities. B) It paved the way for a single-payer health care system in the United States. D) It began a job-training program for Americans with disabilities.
The main effect of the law cited here is "It protected the legal rights of people with disabilities."
We are referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This important piece of legislation prohibits any kind of discrimination in the workplace in the United States due to a disability. This Act requires to have proper conditions if the company's facilities to accommodate workers with disabilities.
Answer: Attribution
Explanation: Attribution tends to explain what led to the occurrence of an event. Attribution helps decipher what individuals encounter and experience by identifying the causal factor or scenario of the event.
According to Hall and Hall, failure in communication may be experienced which could be due to a fault or problem from the sender or receiver. However, people tend to put the blame on the other communicating party. Citing deceit, craziness as reasons for the failure on the path of their communicating counterpart. This is known as attribution.
The French did not want to free their slaves so the slaves revolted against their masters.
Answer:
I can share one fraud example that happened at a company I used to work at, perhaps it can help you with this.
I worked in recruiting for a medium sized tech company, and when big projects came along we had to hire a large number of people in a very short time. On one of these projects we hired a software developer to freelance for us in this project. He did such a good job that he was offered a permanent position after the project was done. He accepted and started working for us immediately after, as another manager wanted to work with him on another project.
Because he was known in the company and it was urgent that he worked with us, the hiring process was rushed and some steps were overlooked. One of these steps was asking the applicant to document their experience, we usually asked for references and recommendation letters. After about a month and a half, HR asked the developer to give his references or ask for recommendation letters, almost as a formality.
Although we called the references and they checked out, something was off in the statements they gave. So a colleague who knew people at a previous company this developer worked for, called a friend and asked her to inquire about him. Turns out he never worked there and had given a fake reference who he had instructed on what to say. Needless to say he was immediately fired.
Although there were policies and procedures to avoid an incident like this, work overload made it so that they were overlooked and we trusted that because he had been a good freelancer he would be a good employee. Afterwards, by company policy it was strictly forbidden to skip a step in the hiring process and a background check was also implemented.
