Answer:
B) negatively correlated.
Explanation:
The case is set, would reflect a negative correlation between wealth and marital satisfaction.
This means that not necessarily the wealth would cause marriages to report higher levels of happiness or satisfaction. This would imply that there is an inverse relationship between two variables - when one variable decreases, the other increases. So to the contrary, it would mean the opposite. Having less money would favor marital satisfaction.
It is so believed that money issues are important variables so, they should be reconsidered. In the case as stated having more money turns into less satisfaction of the pair.
A example that is similar to this as a negative correlation, is the birth of children, and mariage, since the condition creates stress that the new creature poses to the relationship between the pair, that was often better treated.
Answer:
Definition down belowM
Explanation:
Modernization is the process of making something more modern, for example- a toaster that can cook at different settings rather than only one.
Answer: The pundit is using a NATIONAL DEFENSE ARGUMENT to justify the trade restriction.
Explanation: National defense argument is when someone is using the security of the nation to defend his argument, to be very important as the security of the nation is very important.
This type of argument always tends to use the fallacy of red herring to convince his audience about his argument. The argument sounds to be important as it used red herring to relate it's point to the security of the nation during wartime.
The pundit politician has used the fallacy of red herring to relate it's reason of increment in the tariff of semiconductor importation, to the security of the nation during war times. Therefore this is a national security argument.
Answer:
Um, hell yeah. What Penn did is homocide. Cold-blooded murder. That's a crime.
Answer: b. Marbury v. Madison
Explanation:
In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, declared an act of Congress unconstitutional. This was a first and from that day forth (February 24, 1803) the doctrine of Judicial Review was established. It is interesting to note that Thomas Jefferson declared that the concept of Judicial Review was unconstitutional but the decision remains unchallenged.
