1)fraud or hacking. 2)rongrap
Answer:
contact hypothesis
Explanation:
The answer is --
"contact hypothesis".
Contact hypothesis in psychological terms when people of different race or beliefs interact under a certain appropriate conditions and they communicate and interact with each other, it helps in reducing the preconceived ideas or preconception among the members of the majority group and the minority group.
Thus the interracial communication among people of equal status decreases the prejudice and the stereotypes of the people in cooperative circumstances according to the contact hypothesis.
Hence the answer is --
contact hypothesis
Answer:
The correct answer to the following question will be "Inattention blindness".
Explanation:
- Inattentional ignorance or blindness is the inability to recognize an object which is visible but unpredictable because consideration has been paid to the next activity or entity.
- Almost all of the study respondents were ignorant of a paragliding individual strolling through the projection screen.
Therefore, it's the right answer.
Answer: Ultramares corporation v. Touche established Ultramares doctrine. Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that scienter is required before CPAs can be held liable.
Explanation:
All the options except the above are true. Ultramares corporation v. Touche did establish the Ultramares doctrine.
United States v. Natelli sentenced two CPAs to prison for a year, in addition to fines, for violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Bily v. Arthur Young did not uphold the restatement doctrine. The restatement doctrine restatement doctrine makes an auditor liable to people who rely on the quality of his work be they his clients or third parties. Two high courts ruled that auditors are not liable to third parties who use their work but only to the party that contracted their work.
However, Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that an allegation of scienter (an intention to deceive) is not required before CPAs can be held liable as long as the actions constitute actual deception.
While rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act states the presence of scienter as a requirement to commit an offense, the court ruled against the statute by eliminating the Scienter clause from criminal statute and ruled against Ernst & Ernst.
