Emma is talking to her mom on the phone. Emma's mom lists some items she'd like Emma to pick up at the grocery store. Emma tries repeating the items to herself, but forgets a few of them as she listens to a story her mom starts telling about the neighbor's children. Emma's strategy of failed because the capacity of her memory was insufficient for both the grocery items and her mom's story.

Which of the following statements describes the nature of "stigma" as it relates to welfare? a) society values individual characteristics such as self-reliance and a willingness to work hard, welfare recipients are seen as dependent and lazy. b) social welfare hs been polarized as a "moral category", and its related policy includes treating the poor in a dignified manner, as to highlight the responsible nature of the welfare recipents. c) the norm of reciprocity explains the societal obligation to make some return for the things received, welfare recipents are stigmatized because they are able to be seen as making appropiate contributions for the benefits they incur. d) the capitalistic nature of u. s. society stresses that those who work hard and have the ability will be rewarded with success, welfare recipients are equal to those who do not receive welfare because both groups of people deserve the benefits of success.

Which term describes a possible explanation of, or answer to, a scientific question that is based on prior knowledge or research and that is testable?

Arthur met rottweiler breeders lynda and george at a dog show in rhode island. the couple, who reside in new york state, later sold several rottweiler dogs to arthur who lived in rhode island. arthur later sued lynda and george, claiming that the dogs were sick and infirm. he filed a complaint in rhode island courts, claiming that even though the dogs were sold in new york, the breeders had attended the dog show and advertised in the rottweiler newsletter which was distributed at the event in rhode island. based on the facts, do you think rhode island courts have personal jurisdiction in this case?