The author of your text states that the most age-segregated social institution in our society is a four-year college.
Even as changing demographics make this educational paradigm outmoded, universities are among the most age-segregated social institution, catering mostly to young people in their late teens and early 20s. Social Institutions are structured patterns of ideas and behavior that are oriented on fundamental social needs.
Social Institutions are interconnected systems of social roles and social norms that are established to fulfill a vital social need or social function. That was all altered by the Industrial Revolution. The young and the old could not work in factories because they were too risky; only people in their middle years did so. Pediatrics and gerontology are emerging fields in healthcare. People started to gradually separate by age.
To know more about Social Institutions refer to: brainly.com/question/9793095
#SPJ4
Answer:
B
Explanation:
A is saying that the electoral college usually chooses what people vote for
B is saying that an elector doesnt have to vote for what their state says. this is a negative statement
C is not true but its not an opinion any way
E is true but is not an opinion
Answer:
B) Abyssal hill
Explanation:
Abyssal hills are underwater hills found in abyssal floor with a height range of 50–300 meters.
Tablemounts also known as guyots is an underwater volcanic mountain with a height measuring as much as 900 meters. They are much larger in area and height than abyssal hills.
Seamounts are also underwater mountains formed from extinct volcanoes and range in heights from 1,000–4,000 meters.
The answer is rarely. Motions to suppress physical evidence are trailed in fewer than 5% of the cases, largely drug and weapons cases though serious motions to suppress identifications and confessions are filed in 2% and 4% of the cases. The success rate of motions to suppress is equally marginal. Successful motions to suppress physical evidence occur in only 0.69% of the cases, while successful motions to suppress identifications or confessions occur much less often. Furthermore, not all who successfully suppressed evidence runaway conviction in which particularly when only an identification or a confession was suppressed. In all, only 46 cases less than 0.6% of the cases studies were nowhere to be found because of the three exclusionary rules combined most of them linking offenses that would have suffered less than six months of imprisonment or first offenders. Finally, the influence of unsuccessful motions on succeeding plea negotiating was found to be marginal if only unsuccessful motions to eliminate confessions caused in any real sentencing concerns.
<span>ART BY THOMAS POROSTOCKY</span>PRO: RESEARCH ON GENE EDITING IN HUMANS MUST CONTINUE
By John Harris
<span>John Harris is professor emeritus in science ethics at University of Manchester, U.K., and the author of How to be Good, Oxford University Press 2016.</span>
In February of this year, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority in the United Kingdom approved a request by the Francis Crick Institute in London to modify human embryos using the new gene editing technique CRISPR-Cas9. This is the second time human embryos have been employed in such research, and the first time their use has been sanctioned by a national regulatory authority. The scientists at the Institute hope to cast light on early embryo development—work which may eventually lead to safer and more successful fertility treatments.
The embryos, provided by patients undergoing in vitro fertilization, will not be allowed to develop beyond seven days. But in theory—and eventually in practice—CRISPR could be used to modify disease-causing genes in embryos brought to term, removing the faulty script from the genetic code of that person’s future descendants as well. Proponents of such “human germline editing” argue that it could potentially decrease, or even eliminate, the incidence of many serious genetic diseases, reducing human suffering worldwide. Opponents say that modifying human embryos is dangerous and unnatural, and does not take into account the consent of future generations.
