What is the most valid generalization to be drawn from the study of Prohibition in the US?
# Social attitudes can make laws difficult to enforce
*A generalization is a statement about several things or people *clue words to identify generalization * Valid generalization: fact support or prove and (true) generalization *clue words in a sentence to make a generalization: never,all,sometimes,most,always,none,everybody,everone,society,some,almost,only,empty *Faulty generalization: (not true) generalization (can not) be proven or supported with a fact.
I'm no literature genius- but kind of like how a generalization is probably some sort of stereotype, I think a valid generalization is something everyone knows or thinks about something, but that is entirely true. This might not be the best example, but maybe how everyone knows how lions are aggressive, even though some are tame. Or how all toddlers go through the "Terrible Two's," even though some toddlers are as nice as can be…
Which sentence states a generalization that is valid A Women know many housekeeping skills B Women know many skills in many areas C Women know many childrearing skills?
A valid generalization is: B Women know many skills in many areas. True! Same can be said for men, too. These 2 are not valid generalizations: A Women know many housekeeping skills. Untrue. Many women know few housekeeping skills. Sometimes men know more housekeeping tips than the woman. C Women know many childrearing skills. Untrue. Just because women bear children, it does not make all women childrearing experts.
A personal promissory note was drawn between two individuals in the state of Texas and the lender since died. How long does the executor have to enforce the promissory note. Is it still valid?
What amendment no longer valid since it was canceled out by a subsequent amendment allowing the scale of a certain type of beverage?
Politically (and simplistically) speaking, the security equation is viewed as: "Security * Rights = c ( constant)" The more rights individual has; the less security. This statement is arguable and syllogistic, but it's pretty accepted. That said, I think it's a valid generalization that Democrats would sacrifice more security in order to maintain civil and constitutional rights, and more republicans would opt for some limited abrogation of rights in favor of security. This IS a…