Answer:
THE feeling of being in control, of having a say over what happens in one's life, has far-reaching consequences for physical and mental health, for achievement at school and work, and even for sex, researchers are finding.
Szatmary, d. (2010). rockin' in time: a social history of rock-and-roll (9th edition). upper saddle river, new jersey Pearson pdf.
This authoritative text explores topics such as the influence of rock music on the civil rights movement, demographic change, and the baby boom.
Author David Szatmary places rock-and-roll in the context of the social issues that surrounded and shaped it. This authoritative text explores.
Rockin' In Time: A Social History of Rock-and-Roll is a rock history book written by David Szatmary. It was originally published in 1987 and is now in its eighth edition. The book begins with a discussion of the African-American culture and hits and their influences on the creation of rock and roll.
Learn more about Rockin here:-
brainly.com/question/20538428
#SPJ4
Answer:
someone with savant syndrome.
Explanation:
Savant syndrome: The disorder savant syndrome is defined as a condition in which a person has significant or notable mental disabilities describes few abilities moreover average. A person having savant syndrome excel in skills mostly related to memory, for example, artistic ability, map making, rapid calculation, musical ability.
Out of ten, one person with autism carry savant skills.
In the question above, Alexandra is likely someone with savant syndrome.
Answer: D. autoethnography
Explanation: According to Maréchal (2010), "autoethnography is a structure or technique of research which involves self-perception and reflexive investigation with regards to ethnographic field work and writing". Frances is assigned the autoethnography research method because she was to use her experiences from the meal she participated in, her thoughts and feeling about the family event to write her project.
<span>There's not really any pros for propaganda because essentially what you are doing is lying to get someone to believe something. I guess you could say a pro is that gullible people will believe you, but that's an unethical pro. The cons are that it usually causes much controversy in a society where there's not supposed to be a bias in the government. Propaganda in its true form is never a good thing. It is unethical in the sense that it takes advantage of people who are too lazy to do research and quick to believe what someone tells them. One example I like to use is many of these independent "news" websites. On both ends of the political spectrum, left and right, you find websites that have articles so heavily weighed down with that wings propaganda that true news becomes less and less visible. Occupy Democrats is one textbook example of that. Their articles are so left leaning that you read an article and are immediately left with a left leaning impression. Same goes for a lot of right wing websites. I'm not going to say "always" but propaganda 99.9 percent of the time is not good. Instead of people doing their own research to decide their view on something, propaganda </span>tells<span> people what they should think versus the </span><span>asking </span><span>people what they think</span>
