Hey ／人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人＼
The Best Answer Negative
GLAD TO HELP!!!
~~~ ╔͎═͓═͙╗
<span>~~~ ╚̨̈́═̈́﴾ ̥̂˖̫˖̥ ̂ )
</span>
If you get it WRONG i'm SORRY <span>¯\_(ツ)_/¯</span>
Answer: A. designating an anti-charity should be more effective because loss aversion will provide additional motivation
.
Options:
A. designating an anti-charity should be more effective because loss
aversion will provide additional motivation
B. designating a charity should be more effective because it avoids all potential for loss
C. it shouldn’t matter whether one designates a charity or anti-charity
D. self-interest biases generally keep people from choosing the anti-charity
Explanation:
The study of behavioral Economics shows that people are more driven by the loss of fear than the hope of gain. This is known as loss aversion. In commitment contracts where penalty money is promised to a charity or an anti-charity if the goal is not achieved, those who promise their money to an anti-charity tend to achieve their goals more. The same also applies when comparing this group and those who do not have to forego anything if they do not meet their target.
This is because giving to a charity will still seem beneficial while losing the money to an anti-charity will seem like a total loss.
In the scenario in which the first run distribution that can best be characterize as the marketing of films for theaters screening which is the answer. It is a part of the film production. Hope this is the best answer and would be of great help.
Answer:
The answer should be A, sensation.
Explanation:
