Answer:
Formal operational
Explanation:
Jean Piaget develop a theory of cognitive development, according to which, children and teenagers go through different stages in the process of cognitive development. Each stage is qualitatively different from each other and as they go through stages, their thinking go through changes, from thinking based on actions to thinking based on ideas.
The last stage of his theory is called the formal operational stage and it takes place between age of 12 and up. During this stage, adolescents start to think abstractly and reason about hypothetical problems, they are also able to formulate hypothesis and test them in order to find theories and solutions to different problems based on abstract thought.
In this example, Raj is 12 years old and uses statistical analysis and scientific principles to predict the course of weather in New York. We can see that <u>he is thinking in an abstract way and using abstract tools such as statistical analysis in order to create his theory. </u>Therefore, because of his age and the type of thinking he is having, he is most likely in the formal operational stage of development.
Yes because <span>A </span>formal amendment<span> to the USA </span>constitution can<span> only be made by a vote of 2/3 of each house of congress and then by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states, or by a</span>constitutional<span> convention. Once that happens the </span>constitution<span> is changed, and the new provisions are law, just like the rest of the </span>constitution<span>.
i got this from </span>www.quora.com
It caused people to look and study our world more closely that can be explained ed
The biggest challenge for marketers and advertisers are making people aware about the existence of your product.
You can have a product with highest function and quality, but if people are not aware that your product exist, your company would most likely able to generate enough sales to survive.
Answer:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
Explanation:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt simply implies the provision of a proof that can be considered to be close to the real happening. Once a jury or judge is certain that Randy burned down the barn based on evidence, then it is enough to give a verdict. This provides the jury and judge the satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that Randy burned down the barn.
