The answer is "<span>Stimulus Discrimination".
“us” in the above question stands for </span><span>unconditioned stimulus. </span>Discrimination is a term
utilized as a part of both operant and classical conditioning. It includes the
capacity to recognize between one stimulus and similar stimuli. In the two
cases, it implies just reacting to specific stimuli yet not to those that are
similar.
The statement that best describe what is meant by limited government is :
C. there are things the government is not allowed to do
this will give more freedom to the people and the market
hope this helps
I believe the answer is :C. tolerance
In this context, tolerance refers to your physical ability to handle the effect of foreign substance that come inside.
As you consume more of the substance, your body would adjust to increase its tolerance for that substance, which make you need more amount in order to feel the same effect.
Answer: Ultramares corporation v. Touche established Ultramares doctrine. Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that scienter is required before CPAs can be held liable.
Explanation:
All the options except the above are true. Ultramares corporation v. Touche did establish the Ultramares doctrine.
United States v. Natelli sentenced two CPAs to prison for a year, in addition to fines, for violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Bily v. Arthur Young did not uphold the restatement doctrine. The restatement doctrine restatement doctrine makes an auditor liable to people who rely on the quality of his work be they his clients or third parties. Two high courts ruled that auditors are not liable to third parties who use their work but only to the party that contracted their work.
However, Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that an allegation of scienter (an intention to deceive) is not required before CPAs can be held liable as long as the actions constitute actual deception.
While rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act states the presence of scienter as a requirement to commit an offense, the court ruled against the statute by eliminating the Scienter clause from criminal statute and ruled against Ernst & Ernst.
