The correct answer is D. Specific knowledge is excludable, while general knowledge is not excludable.
Explanation:
General knowledge refers to information, facts, etc. that are basic, and due to this, they are known by most of the people. Indeed, general knowledge is obtained through basic education, interaction with others and exposition to media. Moreover, general knowledge covers multiple areas. On the other hand, specific knowledge focuses on specific areas and covers complex facts, information, etc. Also, in most cases, specific knowledge can only be acquired through formal training or education.
Besides, in terms of excludability (quality of a service or product that needs to be paid to be acquired), specific knowledge is mainly excludable because people who do not pay for formal training cannot obtain it. On the opposite, general knowledge is not excludable as this can be obtained for free, and therefore it is not possible to control this (Option D).
Answer:
This is true.
Explanation:
While we all agree that the use of modern technology allows for almost instantaneous dissemination of information, yet some of its benefits for public relations practitioners are compromised by lack of time to manage certain kinds of information.
Public relations can play an important role in helping the organization build its brand, which is the collection of perceptions about the organization in the mind of the consumer.
Time constraint connected to the benefits of public relationship makes them to rush the process of collecting nice and quality perception about its organizarion from member of the society.
This hurry approach is a huge disadvantage as it makes the public relations officer lack adequate amount of time to analyse the data and disseminate the best or world standard service.
Answer: Incongruety or misfit
Explanation:
Peace and justice. Everyone waits 'world leader' to save the world.
Answer: Negatively
Explanation:
Enlightenment ideas were not completely against monarchs but did have problems with the absolute nature of the rule of said monarchs.
Before Enlightenment, monarchs generally ruled as they pleased with the logic being that they had the right to rule from God and so had the right to control the nation as their personal property.
Enlightenment was against this and instead espoused the logic that a monarch was only able to rule due to a social contract signed between them and the people whereby they would be allowed to rule provided they took care of their subjects.
Monarchs reacted to this with negativity because it meant that they had to stop being so selfish with resources and had to share power with the people. As time went on however, and with constant pressure on them, they had to relent and it led to the dissolution of several monarchies in Europe and the transition of others to Constitutional Monarchies.
