Answer:
D. two-factor theory
Explanation:
Two-factor theory: In psychology, the "two-factor theory" was proposed by famous psychologists and researchers named Jerome E. Singer and Stanley Schachter. The two-factor theory is a theory related to the emotion of an individual and is also referred to as "Schachter's two-factor theory of emotion".
The theory describes that an individual's emotions generally consist of two different factors including cognitive label and physiological arousal. Firstly, a few types of arousal will happen such as perspiration, increased heart rate and after that, an individual puts specific labels to the given arousal and later on he or she experiences emotion.
In the question above, the given statement signifies the "two-factor theory".
Answer:
when a child uses an orange crayon and realizes that each time he Dr again the tip across the wall it produces a certain color
Explanation:
Piaget tries to explain the way a child learns through discovery and exploration of his new world. In the above example, the child rubs the tip of his crayon on the wall or paper or any area close to the child and discovered it produces a certain color-coded orange in this case. This is synonymous to when a child pushes a ball, and it rolls across the hallway, the child is pleased at this new development and goes ahead to explore the movement of the ball further. He pushes again to see how far or how exactly the ball would roll and it amuses him. Piaget explains that a child learns in this manner since from this development, the child has learnt that the crayon paints "orange" or that the ball rolls when pushed.
Answer:
When he was arguing for the ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous branch to the political rights of the Constitution,” in part because he believed the federal courts would stand above the political fray and act as a bulwark against tyranny from all directions.
But it’s hard to defend the Supreme Court on these grounds today.
As my colleague Matthew Yglesias has argued, the Court is now a blunt political instrument, used repeatedly to undermine outcomes of democratic governance — often on behalf of corporate interests. And the recent disaster that was the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation has further delegitimized the Court in the public’s mind.
So it’s perfectly reasonable to ask if we should abolish the Supreme Court, or at the very least strip the Court of its ability to overturn laws that it rules unconstitutional. If the Court is no longer a neutral arbiter of the law, if it’s gradually shape-shifting into a partisan weapon, then maybe it’s time to rethink its role in our constitutional system.
Answer:
Yes, i would have been willing to help runaway slaves in 1850 because back then, slaves were mistreated, beeten, and even sold/seperated from their families. Nobody should be treated poorly. I would help slaves to get a better life by escaping to a new home. Hope This Helps! :D
