None of these conclusions is valid.
- The first one implies that people either think that their employer should cover part of the health insurance costs (as said in the original sentence), or they think that the employer should pay 100%. This is not correct because there are other possible opinions people can have, like thinking that the employer shouldn't pay for anything, for example.
- The second conclusion is invalid for the same reason: it implies that people can only either think that the employer should pay a large part, or that the employer shouldn't pay anything. It is not considering other options.
- The third conclusion does not work either because it is referring to what people think about <em>the amount </em>of the costs themselves, whereas the original topic was <em>how</em> they are paid for.
Answer:
Resistance (i.e., war and military resistance); sometimes this included attempts to draw upon supernatural solutions to avoid or to undo conquest.
Acquiescence—often this meant trying to negotiate the best terms possible;
Alliance—sometimes it was possible to join with the Europeans in conquest of neighbours (often traditional enemies with whom they had long been in conflict anyway).
Explanation:
(I gave three)
Answer:
systematic desensitization.
Explanation:
Systematic desensitization: In psychology, the term "systematic desensitization" is described as one of the different behavioral therapies that are being based on the classical conditioning principles and were proposed by Wolpe during the 1950s. However, systematic desensitization aims at removing an individual's fear response associated with the anxiety-provoking stimulus, phobia, by utilizing counter conditioning.
In the question above, the given statement is an example of systematic desensitization.
