Answer:
Inductive, weak
Explanation:
An inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning applies knowledge of past experiences and observations to form conclusions. The premise and conclusion goes "if this happened now... this must then happen". This type of reasoning moves from specific to general as opposed to deductive reasoning that moves from general to specific.
The argument in our question is also a fallacy. A fallacy is a faulty logic or weak argument. The argument is a fallacy of faulty generalization, the typical "jumping into conclusion".
The correct answer is discontinuous change.
Due to Rachael's skiing incident, it affected her thinking, not in a good nor bad way but neutrally. It made her think more of the possible events that may occur if she continued to be outgoing, which is why she decided to be more thoughtful and be reserved. Not all psychologists, in any case, concur that advancement is a nonstop procedure. Some view development as an irregular procedure. They trust development includes unmistakable and isolate stages with various types of process happening in each stage.
Explanation:
The process by which two or more nation-states agree to co-operate and work closely together to achieve peace, stability and wealth. ... This means that the integrating states would actually become a new country
Answer:
It spread to the people of North Africa
Explanation:
