Dr. johnson asks sam, "how have you gotten your way in the past? " sam says, "by intimidating and bullying people." dr. johnson continues, "and what consequences have resulted from your behavior? " sam says, "i have been in jail for 12 of the past 13 years." dr. johnson asks, "what did you actually accomplish by bullying others? " sam responds, "i got jail time." first, a correct diagnosis for sam would most likely be and if dr. johnson asks sam to question the validity of his beliefs as a way to change sam's behavior, then dr. johnson is most likely a

During the period from 1865 to 1898 how did the political/economic elite contain the demands of farmers and laborers for economic justice

In the vals framework, self-expression-motivated consumers who have fewer resources and express themselves and experience the world by working on it are referred to as experiencers thinkers strivers believers makers

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.