The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options attached we can say the following.
We could say that most impeachments seem politically motivated. Yes, there could be arguments that support the impeachment, but behind it, there is always a political motive in which political parties and rivalries want retribution for things that happened during the presidential administrations.
Andrew Jackson had many political and personal differences with members of teh United States Congress. Bill Clinton had a number of considerable enemies in Congress and he made the worst of the mistakes telling lies.
And about Trump, well, Democrats were desperate to make him pay for everything he did before and during his presidency. Political rivalries, revenge, personal agendas. In the end, political motivations.
Answer:
The arousal theory of motivation would be most helpful for explaining
Explanation:
The answer is controllability. Control influences one's emotion and feelings. Controllability refers to how much an individual has over the events of the situation. It also indicates whether the reason for the success or failure is something a person could not or could control.
Answer:
The correct answer to the following question will be "Personal".
Explanation:
- Personal jurisdiction relates to the ability of the court to decide as to whether a party is being charged in a trial.
- Before such a court can assert its authority over a faction, the constitution of the U.S. requires the party to have certain minimum connections with the institution where the court works.
- Courts are given special authority over the offender by the offender who has broken the law of the individual sovereign although in the forum territory.
- This means that a judge does have the authority or power to make a decision that affects an individual. To order for a jury to be able to decide in a legal case, the defendant should have "personal authority" over all of the claimants to a certain legal case.
Therefore, this will be the right answer.
Answer:
Red Herring
Explanation:
Red Herring is a type of fallacy that is used to divert the attention of listeners by introducing an irrelevant topic in an argument. This tool can be used as a logical fallacy or a literary device. The fallacy was introduced by William Cobbett, an English Polemist.
<u>The given reasoning is an example of a red herring fallacy. It is because the argument that was made was on the topic 'Tax cut.' But the reasoning brought by was of Republicans v. Democrats. Republicans v. Democrats had nothing to do with the argument on tax cut. This reasoning was used to divert the listener's attention from the main topic of argument to a fallacy</u>.
So, the correct answer is Red Herring.
