Religion can also have unintended positive results, or latent functions. ... However, not all consequences of religion are positive. Religion can create negative results, or dysfunctions, such as a conflict between different religious groups, persecution of non-religious people, and apathy towards economic inequality.
Social media serves to connect people on a global scale with each other. Latent function (unintended consequences). ... Manifest dysfunction: most profiles are accessible, which means that your life is out in the open and privacy seems far.
Answer:
What?
Explanation:
What are people supposed to answer?
I believe the answer is: Strange situation procedure
Strange situation procedure refers to a method of study which being carried on by making the subjects experience some situation that they never encountered before. This type of study is usually being done in order to determine people's general pattern of behavior when exposed to a certain thing.
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.
