Answer:
The correct answer to the following question will be "Decisions under risk".
Explanation:
- When those risks are known or could be inferred, the option of an appropriate strategy based on such probabilities is called under-risk decision-making.
- Risk means a degree or a level of uncertainty as well as an inability to effectively predict the effects or effects of an event.
Therefore, it's the right answer.
I believe the answer is: B. <span>It denies enforceability to certain contracts that are not in writing
Statute of frauds stated that to be legally binding, an agreement should be materialized in a contract that filled with a specific obligation that must be met by each party under the circumstances that they both agreed on. If this writing do not exist, technically we wouldn't have any ground to sue if the other party failed to fulfill the obligation.</span>
Answer: Tragedy of the commons
Explanation: Tragedy of the commons could simply be explained as the potential destruction or abuse of a communal resource which belongs to not one but group of people or a community due to unrestricted or unregulated access afforded to all members. The destruction or damage done is usually due to the self interest of members who are only guided by their own personal pursuit giving little or no regard to shared instruments, products, infrastructures or resources. In other to guard against 'tragedy of the commons' regulations and restrictions should be made to shield or protect shared resources.
<h3>
<u>Question:</u></h3>
All of the following are formal or informal sources of presidential power except
a. presidential authority to raise revenue
b. presidential access to the media
c. precedents set during previous administrations
d. public support
e. the constitution
<h3><u>
Answer:</u></h3>
All the mentioned options are formal or informal sources of Presidential power except the Presidential authority to raise revenue.
<h3><u>
Explanation:</u></h3>
The powers to raise a revenue is not given to the presidential authority. This is because raising funds occurs when a bill is passed from both the houses of the parliament. A direct implementation of the raise in revenue in a democratic country by a single person or authority would be a sign of dictatorship.
Living in the world's largest democracy, a single raise in any tax or revenue is gone through two houses of the parliament and then it is approved by the government. It is a chain that works and not a single person or authority.
The promise made is, In these modest surroundings, they took the historic Tennis Court Oath, with which they agreed not to disband until a new French constitution had been adopted
On June 20, 1789, members of the French Third Estate took the Tennis Court Oath (French: Serment du Jeu de Paume) at the tennis court built for the Palace of Versailles in 1686. [1] Their vow to "do not separate and meet again as needed until the Constitution of the Kingdom is settled" [1] became an important event of the French Revolution.
The Estates General was convened to deal with the national financial and agricultural crises, but shortly after the convocation in May 1789, especially by order or by the head (reducing third power), I got stuck on a typical problem. Real estate, much more than the other two real estates). On June 17, the Third Estate became known as the Parliament, led by Onore Gabriel Riqueti and Comte de Mirabeau.
Learn more about Oath here: brainly.com/question/1809645
#SPJ4
