Select a person less than 18years old. The person could be a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, someone
about whom you have read biographical information, or even a fictional character from a book, play, or
movie.
1st paragraph-Introduction
Describe relevant background information about the person that could lead to the next paragraph. It may include this personâs age, education, family background or relationship status with othersâ¦.
2nd paragraph-Identify a challenge
Describe a challenge (crisis, problem, issue, or opportunity) the person is experiencing or has experienced.
Explain why it considers as a challenge for this person. Explain how this person is trying to resolve or deal with the challenge (describe the behavior, emotion, and thinking), whether the personâs response-able
to successfully deal with the challenge or not.
3rd paragraph-Erickson development theory
Explain which developmental stage does (was) this person during the challenge occurs. Describe the
definition of the developmental stage including positive and negative trait might be developed, and define
whatever concept(s) you will use to apply to this person. For stage theories, the definition would involve
one or two sentences on what aspects of thought, feeling or behavior that the theory focuses on, also a
description of the characteristics of the particular stage you are applying.
4th paragraph-same challenge is an earlier stage
Discuss any difference of this personâs response to the same challenge if she/he were five years younger than the developmental stage that you identify in the 3rd paragraph. (note: the person might be at the same
developmental stage or not, which depends on how old is your character in this paper). Using your own
word to describe the definition of this developmental stage and the concepts, how the personâs response in
this developmental stage if the person 5 years younger and facing the same challenge that you describe in
the 3rd paragraph.
5th paragraph-conclusion
The conclusion will be a summary of what you have described in earlier paragraphs. Last, describe how
you would deal with the challenge above in your current developmental stage.
Sample Solution
The main model under investigation is a SW model, which guarantees that all Native American hereditary assorted variety is the aftereffect of a solitary relocation from Asia Tw1 ages prior, and asserts no quality stream was available between the two mainlands after this underlying movement (Ray et al., 2010). The portrayal of the SW model can be found on the extreme left half of figure 1 and outlines the single Tw1 occasion from the Asia-America populace bringing about a bottleneck (Nb) into present day America. 2W model forms off of the underlying movement referenced beforehand, yet places for a second later relocation of people detached for 10 ages from Asia preceding their appearance into the Americas (Ray et al., 2010). The middle chart in figure 1 shows delineates this constantly red bolt later in time that the underlying Tw1 occasion. This time of seclusion is the 2W model would imply that a different bottleneck from Asia happened after the underlying flood of movement (Ray et al., 2010). The third model, RFG, takes into consideration consistent quality stream among Asia and the Americas as demonstrated on the extreme right half of figure 1 (Ray et al., 2010). In this specific reenactment, it’s accepted that every populace would make some short memories of segregation between the movement from Asia to the Americas (Ray et al., 2010). To test these three changing rushes of relocation, Ray and partners used the overall informational index where 29 Amerindian populaces were yielded and were hence contrasted and 39 Central Southern Siberian and East Asian populaces (Ray et al., 2010). Microsatellites were recoded into number of rehashes and those which didn’t fit an exact stepwise change model were coded as missing (Ray et al., 2010). Loci with high transformation rates due to dinucleotide rehashes were additionally expelled, subsequently bringing about a last arrangement of 401 loci (Ray et al., 2010). The outcomes from this reenactment utilizing a traditional ABC structure dismissed the SW model and supported the RGF model. The SW model end up being the least good fit yielding back probabilities lower than 2W (Ray et al., 2010). RGF end up being the best fit for the models because of a back likelihood
The main model under investigation is a SW model, which guarantees that all Native American hereditary assorted variety is the aftereffect of a solitary relocation from Asia Tw1 ages prior, and asserts no quality stream was available between the two mainlands after this underlying movement (Ray et al., 2010). The portrayal of the SW model can be found on the extreme left half of figure 1 and outlines the single Tw1 occasion from the Asia-America populace bringing about a bottleneck (Nb) into present day America. 2W model forms off of the underlying movement referenced beforehand, yet places for a second later relocation of people detached for 10 ages from Asia preceding their appearance into the Americas (Ray et al., 2010). The middle chart in figure 1 shows delineates this constantly red bolt later in time that the underlying Tw1 occasion. This time of seclusion is the 2W model would imply that a different bottleneck from Asia happened after the underlying flood of movement (Ray et al., 2010). The third model, RFG, takes into consideration consistent quality stream among Asia and the Americas as demonstrated on the extreme right half of figure 1 (Ray et al., 2010). In this specific reenactment, it’s accepted that every populace would make some short memories of segregation between the movement from Asia to the Americas (Ray et al., 2010). To test these three changing rushes of relocation, Ray and partners used the overall informational index where 29 Amerindian populaces were yielded and were hence contrasted and 39 Central Southern Siberian and East Asian populaces (Ray et al., 2010). Microsatellites were recoded into number of rehashes and those which didn’t fit an exact stepwise change model were coded as missing (Ray et al., 2010). Loci with high transformation rates due to dinucleotide rehashes were additionally expelled, subsequently bringing about a last arrangement of 401 loci (Ray et al., 2010). The outcomes from this reenactment utilizing a traditional ABC structure dismissed the SW model and supported the RGF model. The SW model end up being the least good fit yielding back probabilities lower than 2W (Ray et al., 2010). RGF end up being the best fit for the models because of a back likelihood
