The answer to your question is fill
Answer:shopping back then was like only using coins and having to show less that we have value but now we need like boats load to show We have any value in this world
Explanation:
Answer:
Explanation:
On March 4th, when Charlie took the Rorschach Test, he was supposed to view the images of the inkblots and freely imagine what he saw in them. But Charlie only saw the inkblots for what they were: blobs of ink. Even when Burt tells him to imagine, to pretend, to look for something there in the card, Charlie can't. He struggles to give a true description of the cards, pointing out how one was "a very nice pictur of ink with pritty points all around the eges," but again, this isn't the response that the psychologist is looking for.
Like ambiguously shaped clouds in which people "see" images of people and animals, the inkblots have enough random, busy shapes on them for people to interpret them as many different things--people, animals, scenes, conflicts, and so on. The idea is that the psychologist will pay attention to what a person thinks he or she sees in the inkblots, which is supposed to provide insight on what that person thinks and feels overall.
As a result of Charlie's inability to properly take this test, he worries that he's failed and that he won't be a candidate for the treatment to increase his intelligence. And while he gets frustrated with himself during the test, and while Burt seems to get almost angry--as evinced when his pencil point breaks--I wouldn't say that Charlie is angry in this situation.
But what this scene does reveal about his character is that perhaps he's already smarter than we expect. By insisting on seeing the inkblots for what they really are, and by failing to imagine scenes and images that are false or skewed, Charlie shows that he's not just honest but scrupulous. This early evidence of his good character foreshadows the upcoming conflicts he has with the men at the bakery as well as the researchers themselves, who are less scrupulous.
Answer:
informed consent
Explanation:
According to my research on experiment legal procedures, I can say that based on the information provided within the question all studies involving human subjects must include informed consent. This term is defined as permission granted in full knowledge of the possible consequences. If a researcher does not have this, then the researcher cannot legally use the subject for his studies, since in the eyes of the law it may be considered torture or kidnapping since you do not have proof of the subjects consent.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
