Lamar has just gotten a new job and is attending a company party where he will meet his colleagues for the first time. His boss escorts him around to small groups to introduce him. At the first group, Lamar meets four people and is told only their first names. The same thing happens with a second group and a third group. At the fourth group, Lamar is told their names and that one of the women in the group is the company accountant. A little while later, Lamar realizes that he only remembers the names of the people in the first group, though he also remembers the profession of the last woman he met (the accountant). Lamar's experience demonstrates . Group of answer choices the phonological similarity effect a build-up and release of proactive interference the cocktail party phenomenon a partial-report procedure

An employee of the state government always received his state paycheck on the last workday of the month. the employee was not a good money manager, and just barely managed to make it from paycheck to paycheck each month. on the second to the last workday of the month, the employee had $45 in his checking account, and, needing to buy a birthday gift for his sister, he wrote a check to a gift boutique for $100. he knew that he would be receiving his paycheck the next day, so he could deposit the paycheck before the check would be sent to the bank. however, unbeknownst to the employee, the state legislature was having a budget impasse. because the state constitution prohibited any deficit spending, state employees were not paid as usual. without a paycheck to deposit, the check written to the gift boutique was returned for insufficient funds. the merchant complained to the police, who arrested the employee and charged him under a statute that prohibited "issuing a check knowing that it is drawn against insufficient funds, with intent to defraud the payee of the check."what should be the outcome of the employee's prosecution? a not guilty, because the employee intended to deposit his paycheck the next day. b not guilty, because it was reasonable for the employee to expect that he would receive his paycheck as usual. c guilty, because the employee knew when he wrote the check that he did not have sufficient funds in his account to honor it. d guilty, because reliance on a future source of income does not vitiate the employee's violation of the statute when he wrote the check.