Answer:
the phenomenon in which a person with expertise or status in one area is given deference in all areas
Explanation:
Halo effect is a cognitive bias in which overall impression of any person is formed based on perception of any one attribute of the person.
It is the tendency of evaluating someone based on relating correlating one attribute to another.
Example can be when one is well dressed and posses calm demeanor. It is often seen that people judge him as well educated and with moral values. Thus well dressed mannerism has caused judgmental biasing that he is well educated as well.
Option A says that a person with expertise or status in one area is respected in other areas thus his expertise in specific area is causing halo effect to earn him deference in other areas as well. Thus Option A is correct answer.
Explanation:
Constitution of Nepal 2015 (Nepali: नेपालको संविधान २०७२) is the present governing Constitution of Nepal. Nepal is governed according to the Constitution which came into effect on Sept 20, 2015, regarding the Interim Constitution of 2007.[1][2] The constitution of Nepal is divided into 35 parts, 308 Articles and 9 Schedules.
The Constitution was drafted by the Second Constituent Assembly following the failure of the First Constituent Assembly to produce a constitution in its mandated period after the devastating earthquake in April 2015. The constitution was endorsed by 90% of the total legislators. Out of 598 Constituent Assembly members, 538 voted in favor of the constitution while 60 people voted against it, including a few Terai-based political parties which refrained from the voting process.
Its institutions were put in place in 2010 and 2018 through a series of direct and indirect elections in all governing levels.
Answer:
The Leo Frank case is one of the most notorious and highly publicized cases in the legal annals of Georgia. A Jewish man in Atlanta was placed on trial and convicted of raping and murdering a thirteen-year-old girl who worked for the National Pencil Company, which he managed.
Explanation:
Confrontation most times, makes situations worse. You're with your partner to understand them. If they do something you don't like or something wrong, you don't just go straight up and confront them. No. You sit with them and talk about it first.
Confrontation is not totally outruled in positive/healthy relationships, though. It mostly comes in handy when you've discussed particular issues with your partner (usually something they're doing wrong) and they keep doing them. In this case, you feel your partner has no regard or respect for you or your opinions, neither do they value the peaceful approach you must have taken towards resolving whatever issues.
Nevertheless, confrontation, with or without a peaceful approach first, usually never has a positive outcome. Your partner might feel that by confronting them, you're challenging or even disrespecting them. So, it's best to try to avoid to avoid any form of confrontation towards your partner. And if you feel like, despite trying to take a peaceful approach towards a not-too-good situation, they still continue to do what they are doing, then it's up to you to decide whether or not you want to continue with them.
Hope this helps.