Respond 8
Question 1
Adverse possession is a means for a person to obtain your property if they meet all of the elements. Should a squatter get your land? Why or why not? What is the statutory length of time in your state that the squatter needs to "possess" your land in order to take ownership of it? Is this amount of time long enough, too short, etc? Why?
Respond to this… I may not like it; but if the squatter is meeting all the requirements I guess they should get the land.
The only thing the owner needs to do to prevent the length of time requirement to be met is to check on the property within the requirement amount of years and if they find someone there than they can evict the trespasser or squatter and they can do that by calling the police. I would think if the owner is not able to check on the property they can ask someone to do it and that person can report back to the owner.
The statute regarding the adverse possession can be found at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=541.02.
The statute for the length of time in Minnesota says, “No action for the recovery of real estate or the possession thereof shall be maintained unless it appears that the plaintiff, the plaintiff's ancestor, predecessor, or grantor was seized or possessed of the premises in question within 15 years before the beginning of the action” (541.02 Recovery of Real Estate, 15 Years, 2016).
Personally, I think the 15 years is long enough. I do not think it is too short or too long. This is someone else’s land and the adverse possession should not be able to happen quickly. Our text book says Nevada only requires a five-year period (Lau & Johnson, p. 145). I don’t think that is long enough; but if you are a land owner you should know about adverse possession and take the measures to prevent it.
I am glad I found this out because I have many family members own large farms. I wonder if they know about the adverse possession because I didn’t.
541.02 Recovery of Real Estate, 15 Years. (2016). Retrieved from The Office Of The Revisor Of Statutes: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=541.02
Lau, T., & Johnson, L. (n.d.). The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business. Flatworld Knowledge.
Question 2
In a test of a weight loss program, weights of 40 subjects are recorded before and after the program. Assume that the before/after weights result in r = 0.876.
Is there sufficient evidence to support a claim of a linear correlation between before/after weights?
Does the value of r indicate that the program is effective in reducing weight? Why or why not?
Respond to this… The objective is to test that these exist a linear correlation between the before and after weight loss program or not.
The null and alternative hypotheses are,
H₀: ρ = 0 ( The variables under study are uncorrelated in the population.)
H₁: ρ ± ₀ (The variables under study are correlated in the population.)
Let the known test statistic be г = 0.876.
Let the level of significant be α = 0.05.
Using the table of “Critical values of the Pearson Correlation Coefficient, r” with α = 0.05 and n = 40 the critical values are r = ±0.312.
The test value is greater than the critical value (falls in the rejection region). Reject the null hypothesis. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is an enough evidence to support the claim that the variables under study have significant linear correlation in the population.
Question 3
The environmental controversy for this week revolves around the use of paper or plastic bags, and whether the consumer should have to pay for them.
Plastic bags are thought to harm the environment, and thus raise several different issues. Along with this issue comes the "precautionary principle." This principle states that all new chemicals and technologies should be assumed to be harmful until proven otherwise and that all commercial products that are suspected of being harmful must be removed from the market until studies can demonstrate that they are safe.
dvocates of the principle argue that when dealing with chemicals and technologies, it is better to be safe than sorry. Critics reply that nothing is absolutely safe and that the precautionary principle is unrealistic and would seriously hinder the development of needed drugs, pesticides and other products. Furthermore, the costs of thoroughly testing all controversial chemicals and technologies to prove their "safety" would be prohibitive.
What do you think of these statements? With whom do you agree or disagree and why?
Respond to this… I think paper is definitely better than plastic but in addition to paper there are other resources out there that are far better. One alternative that would work better would be using boxes from the store that the food came to the store in. There is no go around for that right now so using them would make an extra use for a box that would just get thrown away anyways. Another alternative would be canvas bags or reusable bags however you always would have to remember to bring them or else you wouldn't have any bags for your groceries.
I would have to agree that we should view all new chemicals and technologies as harmful until we can prove otherwise.It doesn't make any sense that we would get rid of something that is so bad for our environment to figure out that the new thing we thought was better is actually worse. It makes more sense to keep using what you have until something permanent is figured out and is safer and more cost effective for customers and businesses.
