Answer:
D. Our resources are unlimited, yet our wants and our needs are limited.
Explanation:
Because every good or service has a limit to be reached and people have to decide what to choose based on their needs and wants.
Answer:
The answer is A) gender roles.
Explanation:
Gender roles refer to a set of behaviours that is considered as appropriate for a certain gender. Gender roles vary among different cultures, although most of them are based on the notions of the masculine and femenine.
Gender roles have been shown to influence a person's social development and self-concept.
Answer:
c. She feels proud of herself whenever she does well on her schoolwork.
Explanation:
Intrinsic motivation: In psychology, the term intrinsic motivation is defined as the phenomenon in which an individual is being motivated by internal rewards, i.e, a person's behavior is being driven due to gain internal satisfaction and accomplishment.
Example: An individual plays football because he or she likes it and satisfies it rather than gaining any external compliments.
In the question above, the example of intrinsic motivation is "She feels proud of herself whenever she does well on her schoolwork".
Your answer should be D) High levels of Neuroticism and Extraversion.
Answer:
In keeping with the subject of the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, May 17, 2014 marks the 60th anniversary of the issuance of the decision on Brown v. Board of Education. Brown is a landmark case in which the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that, contrary to the legal doctrine of separate but equal, “separate education facilities are inherently unequal” and ended segregation in the United States. While most people educated in the United States are familiar with Brown, I would like to bring your attention to more arcane cases, with arguably equal significance.
As I wrote about earlier in the blog, the case Hernández v. Texas was decided just two weeks prior to Brown; but there is another little-known case that was instrumental for the American civil rights movement: Méndez v. Westminster. While many scholars of educational desegregation assure us that the beginning of the end of the “separate but equal” doctrine was set underway with Brown v. Board of Education. It could be argued that the beginning of that end may actually date back seven years prior, Méndez v. Westminster, which ended the almost 100 years of segregation that had remained a practice since the end of the U.S.-Mexico War of 1848 and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The end of the U.S.-Mexico War gave rise to “anti-immigrant sentiments [that] resulted in increased measures to segregate Mexican-Americans from so-called ‘white’ public institutions such as swimming pools, parks, schools, and eating establishments.”
Méndez v. Westminster School District of Orange County was a federal court case that challenged racial segregation in the education system of Orange County, California. Five Mexican-American fathers—Thomas Estrada, William Guzmán, Gonzalo Méndez, Frank Palomino, and Lorenzo Ramírez—set out to challenge the practice of school segregation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Their claim was that their children and some 5,000 others of Mexican ancestry, had fallen victim to unconstitutional discriminatory practices by being forced to attend separate schools that had been designated “schools for Mexicans” in the school districts of El Modena, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, and Westminster—all of which were in Orange County. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the segregation of Mexican and Mexican-American students, by relegating them to “Mexican Schools,” was unconstitutional.
Explanation:
I hope this helped!
