Answer:
The answer to this question, and especially the text that your question aludes to, can be found on the lumenlearning website, and it says this: that all beings have a three-step process of learning that explains how an organism develops the capacities to behave and act accordingly, depending on the conditions around it. These three steps are: classical conditioning (Pavlovian conditioning), operant conditioning, and finally, observation. All organisms go through these steps to learn how to behave and act in an environment.
Classical conditioning is simply the way that an organism is taught how to respond by association. As an organism experiences its environment, it observes different events and learns how to associate cause and consequence, or responses, to stimuli. During operant conditioning, an organism also associates and also learns that producing a behavior brings either reward, or punishment, and observation is how an organism learns to act through observation and imitation of others.
To me, learning is a much more complex process, in which, all the experiences taken in by an organism, the environment, and also genetics, play all a role together in the way this organism processes all and acquires knowledge and produces responses to that knowledge. But I agree with these theories that all organisms go through steps. You see it with babies. They first learn to act through what they observe, but as intelligent and sapient beings, they too can learn to produce behavior outside of what was observed, or conditioned in them. So, in animals and other beings the three steps mentioned above might work, but not necessarily in humans.
Explanation:
Answer is
C- attempts by foreign countries to control them
There was only one indenture servant
There is no objective answer to this question, as both sides have arguments that support their views.
If you believe that you are bound by Hobbes' argument, it is because of tacit consent. Tacit consent means that, even though you have not explicitly agreed to follow laws, you have indicated your agreement through other means, for example, by using the public services of the government or by remaining within the limits of your country. Also, you could argue that any rational person would prefer to follow the rules of the government than to live in the state of nature. Therefore, if you are rational, your consent is assumed. Finally, you could also argue that while you did not explicitly agreed, maybe your ancestors did, which still binds you as a member of the same society.
On the other hand, if you believe that you are not bound by Hobbes' argument, you could argue that any contract that is not freely agreed upon is not valid. As the government uses force to make you act according to the law, you cannot be considered to be freely consenting. Also, you can argue that agreeing to follow some rules does not imply following <em>all</em> of the laws of the country. Finally, a common argument against Hobbes is the lack of empirical data. As we do not know if the state of nature is actually bad, or if the contract ever happened, the government cannot gain its legitimacy in that way.
Answer: A true interaction
Explanation:
Sally is able to recognize the interaction between caffeine and extraversion despite they don't solve problems but because they work together to predict problem solving.
