Answer:
The main point here on the appeal would be the fact that the Sherrods decided to stay silent on the last offer made by the Kidds to settle the situation, and rather decided to go ahead and look for a mandatory arbitration. When the Sherrods did that, the Kidds might have understood that they were not accepting their offer for 34.000 dollars and preffered to settle for the result of the mandatory arbitration, which established the price at 25.000 dollars.
Another point is that there was a big time lapse between the last offer made by the Kidds to settle with the Sherrods and their communicating that they would go for that final settlement offer, especially after the mandatory arbitration had already established a new price. This time lapse should also be taken in favor of the Kidds in their appeal
Finally, the matter should have ended when the final decision for the arbitration was given
So it should be expected that on appeal the decision reached in the mandatory arbritration be upheld, instead of the new sum which was initially assumed not accepted by the Sherrods when they went through with the arbitration.
Julius Caesar was an emperor Abraham Lincoln was not. Caesar ruled for a longer time than Lincoln and they both had good political values and were both very involved with the citizens. Malcolm X stood up for what he thought was right and didn't back down. All three were assassinated for what they believed was right. Czar Nichols also thought he had good values and all together, all of these people we assassinated for what they thought was right and were involved with their citizens.
The answer is true. The phenomenon of “daddy stress”—as
Forbes magazine called it in a latest cover story—touches men from the decision-making
office to the rank and file, and while a increasing number of single dads may
feel it most, wedded fathers are hardly resistant.
The answer is "<span>She is a clumsy person."
</span>
The fundamental attribution error is our inclination to clarify somebody's conduct in view of inside components, for example, identity or aura, and to think little of the impact that outer variables, for example, situational impacts, have on someone else's conduct.
The answer is "Nature vs. Nurture".
The nature versus nurture debate is about the logical, social, and philosophical open deliberation about whether human culture, conduct, and identity are caused basically by nature or nurture. Nature is frequently characterized in this verbal confrontation as hereditary or hormone-based practices, while nurture is most generally characterized as condition and experience.
