The National incident management system is focused on tactical planning, and the National Response Framework is focused on coordination.
A cohesive, coordinated, and seamless national framework for domestic incident response is created when the National incident management system and the National Response Framework work together to integrate the capabilities and resources of various governmental jurisdictions, incident management and emergency response disciplines, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector.
Together, the National incident Management System and National Response Framework aim to strengthen the nation's incident management and response capabilities. The National Response Framework offers the framework and methods for a national level incident response policy, whereas National incident Management System provides the template for the management of incidents regardless of size, scope, or cause.
To learn more about National Response Framework click here:
brainly.com/question/12702845
#SPJ9
Answer: Confirmation bias
Explanation: Confirmation bias is a kind of bias where one seeks confirmation of one's biased assumption, whereby each confirmation of one's bias being selected at the same moment, although there is information that is contrary to one's biased assumption. In other words, this bias is a kind of biased selection, where one chooses the information that fits the assumption, and of course this can often be wrong.
That's why Darrell, who was sceptical of the phone model from the beginning, despite the seller's recommendations and information he received from friends about the quality of the phone better than other models, Darrell decides to return the phone because he read that Bluetooth connectivity of the Sat- Fone was flawed, which actually fits his biased assumption, he makes a mistake and returns the phone.
Answer: hope it helps :)))))))
Explanation:
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Whether and, if so, how slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as people for this purpose. Its effect was to give the Southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally
