Answer:
Gender roles are necessary to keep the family in balance.
Explanation:
Functionalists perspective of gender roles view conventional gender roles as necessary to commit to family functioning as it tends towards keeping the family balance: Women take on the “expressive” character of putting up with household chores and giving emotional care, grooming and nurturing of family members, while men take on the “instrumental” character of acquiring income and undertaking important family decisions.
Answer:
The correct answer is A). The two forms are observed to interbreed successfully where their habitats overlap.
Explanation:
According to the biological species concept, the members in a population which interbreed with each other and produce viable offsprings comes under the same species. This classification does not involve morphology because even organisms having the same morphology can be of different species because they do not interbreed with each other in nature.
So here myrtle warbler and Audubon's warbler must be found interbreeding with each other and producing offsprings which have good survival rate and reproductive capability so this information might allowed scientists to reclassify these bird in the same species because only members of same species interbreed with each other. So the correct answer is A.
It’s the third one because if an organism dies off because it’s not evolved to match an environment that’s natural selection
Answer:
The correct answer is option c. "Ceruminous glands produce a waxy substance which protects the genitals".
Explanation:
It is incorrect that ceruminous glands produce a waxy substance which protects the genitals. The ceruminous glands are not located in the genital area, ceruminous glands are specialized sudoriferous glands located in the the external auditory canal. A normal ear have between 1,000 and 2,000 ceruminous glands, which produce the ear wax that protects this zone.
You can write the argument but I’ll list some stuff to help you write it out
•These warnings should be provided for the safety of people who buy their products because if they’re not, then the company should be held accountable for the deaths and or injuries.
This is because if they’re selling products without safety regards, they are selling dangerous products to people including children, which is Illegal.
The dad on the other hand did nothing illegal. He simply bought this product feeling safe to leave it with his child because there were no hazards or warnings of any kind, and BAM! It killed his child.
Therefore leaving the death of the child in the Companies hands.
•if their product does not contain a warning/hazard ( choking )of some sort, they’re technically saying that the child does not need to be supervised while being with that toy.
The dad felt no need to supervise the kid with the toy because there were no warning signs provided on it.
Therefore, leaving the safety in the playskool’s hands.
The dad did nothing wrong here. Since there were no warnings provided. As warnings are to warn those of danger who buy the product. Since no warning was clearly provided, then the safety of his child was not held towards him.
The company on the other hand, failed to do their job which was simply putting safety reguardes on children’s toys. Since that wasn’t provided, then that makes them (the greatest of the product without safety hazards) the killer of the baby.
- I’m sorry it’s so long and I tried but couldn’t think of anything else that would help defend the dad but I hope it helps you write your argumentative essay or whatever it is!
