The term is "selection".
Paul B. Baltes was a German therapist whose expansive scientific plan was dedicated to building up and advancing the life-span orientation of human advancement. He was likewise a scholar in the field of the psychology of aging. Baltes was born in 1939 and died in 2006 at the age of sixty-seven.
Answer:
False
Explanation:
The climate of the organization refers to the work environment that is perceived by the employees. A positive environment improves employee satisfaction and because of that managers try to maintain this. They can asses the climate in their work groups and make changes in management practices that can affect the working climate. Because of that, the statement that says that the actions of associates in supporting diversity are more important than the actions of managers because associates establish the working climate of the organization is false because the managers as the leaders can improve or not the climate of the organization with their decisions.
Answer:
The correct answer is E. Distribution planning.
Explanation:
Distribution planning refers to the development of objectives from production to putting the product on the counter. This process includes the entire chain from when the raw material to produce is entered, and the logistics necessary to transport the product to the final supplier. This process must evaluate external and internal problems in order to make it as expeditious as possible and the times are met in order to avoid product shortages.
Answer:
The correct answer is True.
Explanation:
When an intoxicated person enters into a contract, the contract can either be enforceable, meaning held to the fullest extent of the law, or voidable by the intoxicated person. The court will look at two criteria that need to be present in order to make the contract voidable:
-
The intoxication was severe enough that the person entering into the contract was incapacitated.
-
The other party was aware of the intoxication at the time.
A voidable contract, in this instance, is one in which the intoxicated party can end the agreement under certain terms. To expand on the criteria above, in order for the intoxicated person to void the contract, there needs to be adequate proof that one of the following occurred:
-
The intoxicated person consumed enough alcohol or drugs to cause impairment in thinking sufficient enough that he could not understand the legal ramifications of entering into the contract.
-
The other party to the contract knew of the intoxication.
