Isabella received an excellent job offer for the position of chief financial officer of her company. This was an opportunity for which she had worked very hard for a long time. It required her to move to another state. Her family and friends were happy for her. However, her partner, whom she had been dating for two years, asked her not to take the job. Over the last few months, Isabella felt like she and her partner were not getting along very well and that their life goals were not aligning. Isabella decided to accept the job offer and break off the relationship with her partner. Although she was saddened by the relationship dissolution, she was excited about the future. Explain how each of the following concepts may relate to Isabella’s life story. A. Cognitive dissonanceB. EthnocentrismC. Just-world phenomenonD. Scapegoat theoryE. Prefrontal cortexF. Howard Gardner’s intelligence theoryG. Approach-avoidance conflict

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.