A careful reading of the history of the “idea” of family preservation as well as an appraisal of the recent policy context for its adoption—as illuminated by Berry (1997), Schorr (1997), McCroskey and Meezan (1997), and others—suggests that all three explanations—dissensus on values, practice lacunae, and organizational complexities—may to a degree be valid. At a minimum, these and other trenchant commentaries such as those provided recently by Littell and Schuerman (1999) and Halpern (1999) suggest that any discussion of the “practice” of family preservation absent its historical/valuative roots and current organizational and policy context will be incomplete.
That said, this present paper will focus on some of the most vexing challenges of implementing family preservation practice, some of its enduring legacies as a practice modality, and some of the longer range problems in developing practice theory and application that it has illuminated
Answer:d. It relies on competition to drive down prices and to increase product and service quality.
Explanation:
What is globalization?
This defines how effectively business carry their operations in various countries apart from their own countries.
This is creating a situation where the world come together without being hindered by borders.
This increase in interaction between countries makes it it easier for the countries to not operate as single parties but to work collaboratively to make the world a better place.
Product and service is increased due to the positive competition that exist through globalization.
The correct answer is C. James I
I hope I helped
Answer:
environment, convergent evolution
Explanation:
When two species with no immediate common ancestors are exposed to same kind of environment they might develop body parts which have similar functions leading to convergent evolution. The resultant body parts are known as analogous structures. Here, both Patagonian hares and England rabbits were exposed to similar environment so even though their body structures had different origin, they developed to be similar in function. They are in contrast to homologous structures which develop due to divergent evolution where the origin of the structure is same but they diverge due to different functions.
The colonists thought they were being taxed for problems that they did not create, and in wars that they did not participate in. They thought George III was a tyrant, which he was. Their reasons are clearly laid out in the declaration of Independence. They have (I would say) about 2 dozen grievances and their attitude was enough was enough.
The British fought because their empire was being threatened. They were losing colonies which they thought were rightfully theirs. They came very close (in the beginning) to winning. Maybe George was a little insane, but he was their king and the government flowed from him.
