Answer: Sent explorers to North America to expand Chinese territories.
Explanation:
The Han dynasty brought about a golden ae in Chinese culture, identity and art and science progression with trade along the silk road bringing prosperity that allowed people to study the arts and the sciences. In order to encourage fairness, laws were based on the teachings of the revered philosopher, Confucius and Confucianism was used to educate court officials.
Th Han never sent explorers to North America to expand American territories and it is unlikely that the Chinese reached North America before the Europeans.
This demonstrates (A) proactive aggression.
<h3>
What is proactive aggression?</h3>
- Proactive or instrumental aggression is goal-directed behavior that goes beyond physical assault (e.g., robbery).
- In contrast, reactive or aggressive hostility occurs in response to provocation (e.g. retaliation).
- The essence of proactive aggression is goal-oriented and calculated (Dodge, 1991).
- A child assaulting a peer in order to seize their snack or toy is an example of proactive aggression.
- A child threatening to physically injure a peer to gain their way is another example of proactive aggressiveness.
So, in the given situation where "a serial killer stalks a potential victim for weeks, attacking only when it is least likely that he will be caught" is best described by proactive aggression.
Therefore, this demonstrates (A) proactive aggression.
Know more about aggression here:
brainly.com/question/16961914
#SPJ4
The correct question is given below:
A serial killer stalks a potential victim for weeks, attacking only when it is least likely that he will be caught. This demonstrates _____ aggression.
(A) proactive
(B) frustrative
(C) reactive
(D) passive
Answer:
a). DOES
b). DOES NOT
Explanation:
A fallacy is the reasoning which is logically incorrect, it undermines the logical validity of the argument, and is also recognized as unsound. It is the use of the invalid reasoning or faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument.
In the context, it is given that every time the fire station's alarm rings, I understand that fire has broken out somewhere nearby. And if one needs to stop the risk of fire, then one should prohibit sounding the alarm of the fire station.
Thus this statement is the false reasoning and is logically incorrect. Sounding of the alarm does not causes the fire. So it does commit a fallacy and it does not commit an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
