ClearWater US makes water filtration systems.  The productio…

Questions

The fоllоwing tаble reflects the results оf а study by Roediger аnd Karpicke (2006). The authors investigated whether the test-enhanced learning effect (the demonstration that repeated testing improves memory for material) was due merely to repeated exposure to the material. They randomly assigned participants to one of two study conditions (study–study or study–test) and to one of three retention interval conditions (final test at a delay of 5 minutes, 2 days, or 1 week). The dependent variable was the proportion of idea units recalled from an encyclopedia passage.Table: Test-Enhanced Learning   5 minutes 2 days 1 week Mean Study–study 0.80 0.55 0.42 0.59 Study–test 0.75 0.70 0.55 0.67 Mean 0.78 0.63 0.49     Reference: Ref 14-1 (Table: Test-Enhanced Learning) Based on the cells of this study, which effects appear to be present?

While оn rоutine pаtrоl lаte one night, Pete, а police officer, noticed that a black Nissan was weaving recklessly across several lanes of traffic. Pete stopped Nick, the driver of the black Nissan, believing that Nick was driving while intoxicated. By state law, Pete was empowered to arrest Nick and take him to the nearest police station for booking. As Pete approached the vehicle, Pete saw Nick put what appeared to be a bottle in the glove compartment. Pete arrested Nick and then searched the black Nissan. In the glove compartment, Pete discovered a vial containing a small amount of cocaine. Nick was charged with possession of cocaine. At a preliminary hearing, Nick’s attorney moves to prevent introduction of the cocaine into evidence on the grounds that the search violated Nick’s federal constitutional rights.Will this motion most likely be granted?

Electric Cоmpаny mаnufаctured electrоnic equipment. Electric Cоmpany was concerned about employee theft. In cooperation with the police department, Electric Company secretly placed a small camera in the employees’ changing room. When Emily was changing her clothes after the morning shift, the person monitoring the camera saw Emily place some valuable chips in her coat pocket. After she left the plant, a police officer arrested Emily; after the arrest, the officer reached into Emily’s coat pocket and found the chips there.Emily files a motion to suppress the use of the chips as evidence at trial, claiming they were obtained in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.How should the court rule on Emily’s motion?