Answer: Recruiting
Explanation: Sam's Sammywhich Shack needed to devote more time and invest more resources in his ad for the cook job, because this would make his ad look more serious and job seekers would have the impression that it was a serious business. If the ad is written quickly and seems unobtrusive, almost no one will respond to the ad or someone like this candidate with no experience and who was late for the interview because all the more serious candidates probably responded to another ad. To devote more time and resources to recruiting in order to prevent similar problems means first and foremost developing a plan and accurately targeting a particular profile when it comes to candidates. First, a catchy title should be set up that will attract a specific candidate profile. It is not bad that the introduction mentions something that sounds friendly and somewhat drives the emotions of potential candidates. Then the history of the company or simply what sets the company apart from others, hence the authentic company story. The position being sold i.e looking for candidates should actually be sold with an adequate story. Indicate the location of the company by something special, then what is expected of the candidates, how the candidates will contribute to the company and gradually explain the application process.
It was parchment, I believe, but I'm not 100% sure.
I think the answer would be false. Old drivers with a lot of driving experience will still be at risk for a crash if they drink a small amount and drive. Alcohol can affect someone's ability to drive regardless of age or experience.
False is choice B.
Answer:
The correct answer is C. A judge could throw out the teen's confession unless the officer complies with the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.
Explanation:
Miranda v. Arizona is a ruling of the United States Supreme Court from 1966. The case established the current practice whereby a suspect is required to read his or her rights (the so-called Miranda rights) without exception, which state the right to before a preliminary investigation of the suspect has begun.
That was the decision in Ernesto Miranda's trial. Miranda was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and sexual assault of an 18-year-old girl on prima facie evidence. After two hours of questioning, Miranda signed the confession. However, he had never been informed of the possibility of meeting a legal adviser or of being silent, and that his confession could not be used against him. During the trial, Miranda's attorney, Alvin Moore, argued that confession would therefore not apply in court. Moore's objection was rejected and Miranda was sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence. The Arizona Supreme Court also upheld the ruling.
The United States Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, ruled that, due to the Fifth and Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, no confession would be valid unless the suspect was informed of his rights. The Fifth Amendment states that no one can be compelled to testify against himself and the Sixth Addendum secures access to a lawyer. Ernesto Miranda's judgment was overturned, but he was later sentenced to prison for the same case, based on other evidence.
