Phyllis is always took care of douglas he now considered is is his duty and privilege to take her part both family members and professionals disagree use the method of thinking and describe how these steps apply to douglas decision to take care of phyllis
step one define decision clearly
step 2 conciser all possible choices
step 3 all relevant information and evaluate the pros and cons and for each choice

The technique of getting a commitment from a potential customer and then changing the terms of the agreement is best described as low-balling. cognitive dissonance. reciprocal concession. the foot-in-the-door technique. a half-dozen high school students are going to a concert. chantal wants to wear a new colorful outfit that she just received as a gift, but she assumes that her five friends will all be wearing nothing but black leather. chantal decides to do likewise, and leaves her colorful outfit in the closet. chantal’s behavior is an example of conformity. resistance. reciprocation wariness. idiosyncrasy credits.

Why did the south think that its secession from the union would succeed? a. the confederate army was larger than the union army. b. european nations had promised to support the south. c. the south only had to defend itself against the north, not defeat it.

Ahusband who believed that his wife was having an affair with his brother hired an arsonist to burn down the brother's house. they planned for the husband to take his brother to a ballgame so that the arsonist would be able to set the house on fire without detection. after the husband and brother left for the ballgame, however, the arsonist decided to abandon the plan and immediately left town without doing anything further. when the husband returned from the ballgame with the brother, he saw the house still standing and blurted out what was supposed to have happened. the husband and the arsonist were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit arson. at the arsonist's trial, his attorney argued that he was innocent of the conspiracy because he decided not to go ahead with the plan, and nothing criminal had in fact occurred.at common law, how should a jury find the arsonist? a not guilty of conspiracy, because going to a ballgame is not a criminal overt act.b not guilty of conspiracy, because the husband, not the arsonist, committed the overt act.c guilty, because the husband executed his part of the plan.d guilty, because the arsonist agreed to set the brother's house on fire.