Which of the following responses best represents reasoning from the conventional level? I think it’s okay if she does. Most of the people I know would probably do the same thing if they were in her situation. She shouldn’t plagiarize, but I’d like to think that her professor could make an exception to the rule regarding late papers. I mean, should she have let her roommate die while she finished the paper? How would anyone be better off in that scenario? I wouldn’t. If she gets caught, she could wind up getting an F for the semester.

Einar sees alexandra every day across the room in his history class but has never talked with her. einar likes the way alexandra looks, including the way she dresses and how she wears her hair. he's even more attracted to her apparent intelligence and the way she handles herself in class discussions and during interactions with the instructor. he'd like to know more about her, so he asks one of his friends about her. einar, using a passive strategy to gain information about her, is probably in the preinteraction awareness stage of any relationship that might develop between them. t/f

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.

Which fundamental freedoms do citizens of both washington and the united states have in common freedom of education freedom to assemble freedom of earnings freedom of religion freedom of speech