I believe the answer is: plasticity
Value of plasticity refers to the quality that obtained by a certain individual after performing a same task over and over again. This value is basically held by all living organisms, which buried deep in brain and most commonly recognized as survival instinct to adapt to the environment around us.
Answer:
This is an example of masked-man fallacy.
Explanation:
The masked-man is a fallacy in which two people or objects are mistakenly considered to be either identical or completely different. The most common example used to explain it is the following:
I know who Joshua is.
I don't know who the masked man is.
Therefore, Joshua is not the masked man.
In the example above, Joshua and the masked man are considered different, unrelated. <u>In the situation we are analyzing here, the opposite happens. To reach the conclusion that Tamiko stole Maya's shoes, we are making the huge mistake of not considering any other possibility. Tamiko could very well have an identical-looking pair of shoes; Maya could have lent Tamiko her shoes and forgotten about it, and so on. Therefore, assuming that the shoes are the same, that they belong to Maya and have been stolen, is a result of wrong reasoning and an example of masked-man fallacy.</u>
Answer:
The bombing was probably mentioned in the film because it was a recent tragic that took place, that could still be affecting the characters or the people around them.
Explanation:
Traditionally, it has been taught that a formal essay consists of three parts: the introductory paragraph or introduction, the body paragraphs, and the concluding paragraph. An essay does not need to be this simple, but it is a good starting point.
Answer:
a) Chimel vs. California
Explanation:
The Chimel vs California case was a result of police officers going to Chimel's home with a warrant that authorized his arrest for burglary. After the warrant was served, the police officers comprehensively searched the house of Chimel. The search revealed various items that were used as exhibit to convict Chimel. The State Courts upheld Chimel's conviction. However the Supreme Court in a 6-2 decision, did not find the search of the full house reasonable, as a search warrant would be needed for this cause.
