The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Congressman has to respond to the Big Pizza Lobby taking these considerations in mind.
Congressman has to realize the impact of the presence of this big "company" in the market. Not only for other industries that cannot compete with this huge company but the impact it has on consumers.
The congressman would propose the kind of bill that benefits free trade, competence, and benefits consumers in a free market.
The big company is not going to stay "arms-folded." The company is going to hire lobbyists to negotiate with congressmen in order to promote its particular agendas and personal interests.
Of course, the big company wants to change the rules against it, and modify them to facilitate their interests. The negotiations can make legislators doubt or rethink a regulation. That is when Congressman has to think to support the interests of citizens, who were the ones who took him/her to office in the elections. So congressmen serve the people, not large companies.
The correct answer is: "Unexpected, related or possible related to the research, suggests the research puts subjects or others at greater risk"
The OHRP defines an unticipated problem in the scenario of a research involving human participants. Defining the problem as unanticipated means that it was not foreseen at all when detailing the possible risks for the parcipants of the study on when those were asked to sign a consent form. It is also unanticipated in the sense that the problem which have aroused does not match in terms of likelihood with the characteristics of the specific individual suffering it.
Such term does not refer to some inconvenience with minimum consequences, but it suggest that the problem occurring affects the research subjects or others and places them at a greater risk of harm - physical, psychological, economic ,etc.- than was anticipated before the research.
Answer: Ultramares corporation v. Touche established Ultramares doctrine. Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that scienter is required before CPAs can be held liable.
Explanation:
All the options except the above are true. Ultramares corporation v. Touche did establish the Ultramares doctrine.
United States v. Natelli sentenced two CPAs to prison for a year, in addition to fines, for violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Bily v. Arthur Young did not uphold the restatement doctrine. The restatement doctrine restatement doctrine makes an auditor liable to people who rely on the quality of his work be they his clients or third parties. Two high courts ruled that auditors are not liable to third parties who use their work but only to the party that contracted their work.
However, Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that an allegation of scienter (an intention to deceive) is not required before CPAs can be held liable as long as the actions constitute actual deception.
While rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act states the presence of scienter as a requirement to commit an offense, the court ruled against the statute by eliminating the Scienter clause from criminal statute and ruled against Ernst & Ernst.
I believe the answer is: <span>w/municipalities, parishes, wards
Municipalities would include the organizational units in </span><span>city council electoral districts, which includes thins such as cities, counties, district, etc.
Parishes exist to offer religious services in the </span> city council electoral districts and wards exist in neighborhood to act as local authorities from the city council electoral districts.
One of the most important social psychological findings concerning race relations is that members of stereotyped groups internalize those stereotypes and thus suffer a wide range of harmful consequences.
Stereotype Threat is the experience of anxiety or concern in a situation where a person has the potential to confirm a negative stereotype about their social group. Since its introduction into the academic literature in 1995, Stereotype Threat has become one of the most widely studied topics in the field of social psychology. First described by social psychologist, Claude Steele and his colleagues, Stereotype Threat has been shown to reduce the performance of individuals who belong to negatively stereotyped groups. If negative stereotypes are present regarding a specific group, they are likely to become anxious about their performance, which in turn may hinder their ability to perform at their maximum level.
Stereotype Threat is a potential contributing factor to long-standing racial and gender gaps in academic performance. However, it may occur whenever an individual’s performance might confirm a negative stereotype. This is because Stereotype Threat is thought to arise from the particular situation rather than from an individual’s personality traits or characteristics. Since most people have at least one social identity which is negatively stereotyped, most people are vulnerable to Stereotype Threat if they encounter a situation in which the stereotype is relevant.
Situational factors that increase Stereotype Threat can include the difficulty of the task, the belief that the task measures their abilities, and the relevance of the negative stereotype to the task. Individuals show higher degrees of Stereotype Threat on tasks they wish to perform well on and when they identify strongly with the stereotyped group. These effects are also increased when they expect discrimination due to their identification with negatively stereotyped group. Repeated experiences of Stereotype Threat can lead to a vicious circle of diminished confidence, poor performance, and loss of interest in the relevant area of achievement.
The opposite of Stereotype Threat is known as Stereotype Enhancement, which entails an individual’s potential to confirm a positive stereotype about their social group, and a subsequent increase in performance ability in the related task as compared to their ability prior to their exposure to the stereotype.
Advocates of Stereotype Threat explanation have been criticized for exaggerating it and for misrepresenting evidence as more conclusive than it is.
