Sarah and her colleagues lost their jobs as a result of downsizing at her firm. Due to severe recession, most of her colleagues struggled to find new jobs. While most of her colleagues couldn’t cope with the loss of their jobs, Sarah showed tremendous will and courage to find new work opportunities and continued her pursuit for work. She soon acquired new skills and found herself a new job. This illustrates Sarah’s:

Resilience  

Explanation:

In psychology, the concept of resilience refers to the ability to cope and face trauma, adverse situations or negative things that happen in one's own life and not only "bounce back" from these situations but also experiencing a personal growth from them.

In this example, Sarah lost her job (negative situation which is a source of stress), however she showed tremendous will and courage to find new work opportunities and she even acquired new skills and found a job. We can see that she didn't just bounce back from adversity but actually learned new skills (personal growth) derived from it. Thus, this illustrates Sarah's resilience.

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )

question - in 1827, john walker, a druggist in a small english town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. the druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. it is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. although walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. it could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. in a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. the match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. it would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. this was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar. according the paragraph what was the benefit of the new phosphorus match? it burst into flame when rubbed on sandpaper. it was made by mixing chemicals. it could be ignited on any dry surface. it threw fire in all directions.

answer - matches required natural chemicals