In my opinion its C all the other answers are just examples of daily subjects
Answer:
This case involves a federal death sentence imposed on defendant-appellant Fields for conviction of a federal capital offense. Fields was sentenced to death largely on the basis of the opinion of a psychiatrist who stated that he could confidently predict Fields would be dangerous in the future. The psychiatrist testified that he did not know of any "standard psychiatric or medical procedures used in arriving at a determination or predicting future dangerousness" and that he was unaware of specific empirical data or studies. He issued his opinion without engaging in any testing or any other objective measures or use of an actuarial method. His basis for this opinion was discussions with the prosecutors and review of some records regarding the defendant. The defense attorney objected to the testimony as unreliable under the standards for expert testimony established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical (i.e., that proffered evidence must be grounded in scientific reasoning or methodology). The district court overruled the objections and allowed the expert testimony to go to the jury.
Explanation:
The issue of integrity is that the company is ignoring her civil rights as an individual.
In this case, the woman is sexually harassed by a top-level senior executive in a large company. There should be a higher moral standard for the company itself, this executive is going to present an inappropriate image for the company.
The woman can decline the settlement amount and continue with the sexual harassment case or that she can accept the settlement, keep her job. She should not collect the money and continue the case. This will help in putting an end to the act.
Learn more about integrity on:
brainly.com/question/1188458
Answer:
B
Explanation:
figurative language means it gives life to a nonliving thing
How do we start the problem? What is it asking?
