No More Worries!

image Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay

Paper Formatting

  • Double or single-spaced
  • 1-inch margin
  • 12 Font Arial or Times New Roman
  • 300 words per page

No Lateness!

image Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay

Our Guarantees


  • Free Unlimited revisions
  • Guaranteed Privacy
  • Money Return guarantee
  • Plagiarism Free Writing

Social welfare as a mechanism for redistributing resources

Since social welfare is a mechanism for redistributing resources from those in a society who have assets to those who do not, under what conditions do you think that social welfare is justifiable. Identify categories of people that you believe society should assist and categories of people that society should not assist. How do these groups of people differ? How are they alike? Please respond to at least two others in your class.

  1. In 2017, McKinsey & Company created a five-part video titled “Ask the AI Experts: What Advice Would You Give to Executives About AI?” View the video and summarize the advice given to the major issues discussed. (Note: This is a class project.)
  2. Watch the McKinsey & Company video (3:06min.) on today’s drivers of AI at and identify the major AI drivers. Write a report.
  3. Explore the AI-related products and services of Nuance Inc. ( Explore the Dragon voice recognition product.

Sample Solution

h for Jim Poppe in the hypothetical constituted the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)? This question is important because Mr. Lawrence can only be held civilly liable for Jim's emotional distress, if he actually committed IIED. While it seems to be clear from the facts of the hypothetical that Jim suffered severe emotional distress, it is not clear that Lawrence's actions and words were severe enough to hold him liable for IIED. I will argue that Mr. Lawrence did not commit IIED. Although Jim did experience severe emotional distress from the coaching sessions, Lawrence's conduct was not outrageous or utterly intolerable, and therefore does not meet the standards necessary to qualify as IIED. The concept of a tort for the intentional infliction of emotional distress first came to surface in the Florida Supreme Court in Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida in 1958. Slocum asked the court to recognize the existence of IIED as an intentional tort. She had been insulted by an employee at a grocery store and later suffered a heart attack. She sought money damages for the emotional distress and ensuing heart attack. The court said that even if they did recognize the existence of IIED, it must be proven that the defendant meant to cause severe distress. They said a line has to be drawn between conduct likely to cause mere emotional distress and conduct that would cause severe emotional distress (Den Otter, 13). Thus, the court rejected Slocum's case because the store clerk's conduct was only intended to cause mere emotional harm at most. Seven years later, in the District Court of Appeal of Florida, the case Korbin v. Berlin officially established IIED as an independent tort. The court ruled in order for conduct to qualify as IIED, it must be "calculated to cause severe emotional distress to a person (a child) of ordinary sensibilities" (Den Otter, 16). Consequently, Korbin established that IIED is examined differently for children than adults. When trying to determine if IIED took place in conduct toward a child, you must ask whether an ordinary child of that age would have been severely emotionally distressed. Furthermore, in the case Dominguez v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States the third District Court of Appeal of Florida created four elements necessary for IIED. (1) The wrongdoer's conduct was intentional and reckless, (2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community, (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress, and (4) the emotional distress was severe (Den Otter, 20). Thus, you have to examine the relationship of the parties when determining whether IIED occurred. Based on the elements necessary for IIED, I believe Lawrence should not be held liable for IIED. His actions did cause Jim's emotional distress, and the distress was severe, however it is a major stretch to claim Lawrence's conduct was reckless, outrageous, and utterly intolerable. Those who feel Lawrence's conduct was IIED, would primarily argue that he did act outrageously and intolerably. They would probably point to Korbin as a basis for holding Lawrence liable in the common law hypothetical, claiming Lawrence's words, like Muriel Berlin's were intended to significantly harm the child emotionally. Furthermore, opponents of my view may hold that beca

Price Calculator

Single spaced
approx 275 words per page
Total Cost:

12% Discount


  • Research Paper Writing
  • Essay Writing
  • Dissertation Writing
  • Thesis Writing

Why Choose Us


  • Money Return guarantee
  • Guaranteed Privacy
  • Written by Professionals
  • Paper Written from Scratch
  • Timely Deliveries
  • Free Amendments