Answer:
The answer is explained below.
Explanation:
Edward F Diener is an American psychologist. He is known for conceptualising the aspect of happiness which can be empirically measured, it is called Subjective Well Being (SWB). He is a leading researcher in positive psychology. According to him, there are five factors that are important for happiness: Money, Positive thinking styles, Social relationships, adaptation, society and culture.
The answer to this question is explained below.
Explanation:
There are two parts in this question. One is the possible heuristics when deciding whether you should study hard for the test, and secondly when ask someone for a date, or accept a date.
Studying hard for the test:
In deciding whether study hard for the test, you should consider the following heuristics:
- Think of your previous experience about studying and see if it worked for you.
- If it worked for you, go for it.
- If it did not work for you, try a better solution this time.
Asking someone for date(or vice versa):
In deciding whether to go on a date with someone, the following heuristics should be kept in mind:
- Think that what you know about the person you are asked or being asked about the date
- Know what your own limits are
- Make sure you know the person well before asking for a date.
Learn more about heuristics at:
brainly.com/question/2933570
#LearnWithBrainly
Answer:
valuable resources, if not that answer, need more context
Explanation:
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>are a type of case-based reasoning.
This is because they use a case scenario when simulating how the best of experts can act in a particular scenario. They rose to prominence in the 1970-'s and are widely used in the ares of medicine. they simulate the experts in the field and re very expensive to create.
</span>
