Processing and manipulation information, changing the meaning of an experience, or goals substitution is an example of: 1Using humour
2 input regulation
3 dysregultion
4 central regulation

11-32. the main character in the parable, the forgiving father, whose character remains constant throughout the story, is a picture of god. in telling the story, jesus identifies himself with god in his loving attitude to the lost. the younger son symbolizes the lost (the tax collectors and sinners of that day, luke 15: 1), and the elder brother represents the self-righteous (the pharisees and teachers of the law of that day, luke 15: 2). the major theme of this parable seems not to be so much the conversion of the sinner, as in the previous two parables of luke 15, but rather the restoration of a believer into fellowship with the father. in the first two parables, the owner went out to look for what was lost (luke 15: 1-10), whereas in this story the father waits and watches eagerly for his son's return. we see a progression through the three parables from the relationship of one in a hundred (luke 15: 1-7), to one in ten (luke 15: 8-10), to one in one (luke 15: 11-32), demonstrating god’s love for each individual and his personal attentiveness towards all humanity. we see in this story the graciousness of the father overshadowing the sinfulness of the son, as it is the memory of the father’s goodness that brings the prodigal son to repentance (romans 2: 4).

amazing

explanation:

i really like the quality of it and how it's been played keep it up

the aesthetic impact is that moment when you are relating spatially to the target. the "ai" occurs when you have an impression that includes both you and the target and is usually a spatial relationship.

formal arguments

in written, formal arguments, the best way to build credibility with readers is to provide them with evidence. no matter what your argument might be and which side you agree with, citing strong evidence to back up your claim leaves the opposition with little to argue.

emotional appeal is often used in oral arguments. written arguments, however, rely on four main types of evidence. as you read further, you will see that some types are more credible than others and "hold more water" so to speak.

statistical evidence

the strongest type of evidence in formal writing is statistical evidence. this ranges from true, hard data presented as a percentage or number, to survey-type data. for example, statistical evidence could be:

4 out of 5 experts claim

85% of women in the united

7 members were present

statistical evidence can be proven as fact. you can actually go out and find hard information to prove your particular claim.

testimonial evidence

the use of celebrities as credibility evidence can be considered testimonial in nature. many people look up to celebrities as role models in their lives. good or bad, when a person chooses a life-path that takes them into public light, there will be many others out there who want to emulate the celebrity. these celebrity endorsements provide the second-strongest type of evidence found in formal arguments.

testimonial evidence can also be collected from experts and authorities in a given field. doctors, dentists, lawyers often provide expert testimonials. their authority is not often questions. they are expected to "know their stuff."

anecdotal evidence

when storytelling is involved as evidence, anecdotal evidence is being used. due to its less objective nature, anecdotal evidence is not extremely strong. when coupled with statistical or testimonial evidence, anecdotal evidence can be highly effective in determining credibility or proof.

storytelling, although based on fact, can include quite a bit of opinion, thus making it less objective. usually, eyewitnesses are used as providers of anecdotal evidence. they saw or experienced the phenomenon at hand are telling their version or side of the story.

analogical evidence

when information is scarce about something and little is known, analogical evidence is often used in a formal argument to increase credibility of the proof. if the phenomenon in question is new and little is known about it, analogical evidence that pulls in known factors about a similar phenomenon to show parallels can be an effective way to provide proof.

due to limited knowledge about the phenomenon, in this situation, analogical evidence can be regarded as the weakest type of evidence used in formal arguments. one can only imagine and hope that the comparison-phenomenon is close enough that the results can be applied to the new phenomenon.

in the

all that really matters in a formal argument is whether or not the writer has credible evidence to back up what they want to say or what they are thinking. so often, we hear people say, "prove it! " to one another.

one last little formal arguments not only provide credible evidence to support claims, don't forget that acknowledgment of the opposing point of view in an argument also strengthens the entire product.