The ananswer is True. i am not sure if its true or false question though.
At the level of 0.05% significance we can not reject the psychologist's claim. His claim is supported.
Explanation:
When a researcher undertakes a project to do research firstly he takes some random samples. Sample is definite a small group of numbers assume to represent the whole population. Suppose a researcher wants to do research on married couples to find the trend of divorce among them. For that reason he will randomly choose some of the couples and will draw conclusions that inter personal communication reduce the chances of divorce.
Now to establish this experiment as a fact he needs to go through a test of level of significance. Where he will get the result that his statement is established or rejected.
Answer:
Explanation:
Work on the census were divided into three main stages: the preliminary work, the census conducting (pre-enumeration checks, data collection, post-enumeration sample survey), data obtaining and processing (data receipt, coding, data capture, receiving the outputs).
The U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Scott lived in Wisconsin with his master, Dr. John Emerson, for several years before returning to Missouri, a slave state. In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master’s widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision. Scott appealed the decision, and as his new master, J.F.A. Sanford, was a resident of New York, a federal court decided to hear the case on the basis of the diversity of state citizenship represented. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was divided along slavery and antislavery lines; although the Southern justices had a majority.
During the trial, the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Southern majority responded by ruling on March 6, 1857, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Three of the Southern justices also held that African Americans who were slaves or whose ancestors were slaves were not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. These rulings all confirmed that, in the view of the nation’s highest court, under no condition did Dred Scott have the legal right to request his freedom. The Supreme Court’s verdict further inflamed the irrepressible differences in America over the issue of slavery, which in 1861 erupted with the outbreak of the American Civil War.
Answer:
a negative reinforcement trap
Explanation:
A negative reinforcement trap occurs when a parent asks the child rondo something and instead of doing that thing or fulfilling the request of the parent, the child goes ahead to negotiate his way out of doing that thing. This gives birth to negative reinforcement trap as shown in the example above whereby the child keeps looking for a way to negotiate himself out of each request by the parent such as the whining by the child here so that his mum let's him watch TV and the increase in frequency
