Answer:
The criticism is true to a certain degree, and unjustified to another degree.
Explanation:
It is true in the sense that the U.S. has indeed lost a lot of manufacturing to Mexico, simply because Mexico has far lower labor costs, and U.S. manufacturers have decided to take advantage of that by taking their plants to Mexican states.
It is also true that Mexico has been running a trade surplus with the United States in recent years, mainly because of the large manufacturing sector that Mexico has been developing.
On the other hand, the criticism is unjustified because neither a trade deficit nor the moving of manufacturing to Mexico mean that the United States as a whole is in worst condition than before NAFTA. In fact, most economists agree that free trade is a good thing for the economy as a whole, and that most people benefit from the lower costs and specialization that trade brings about.
The problem lies then, in the people who lose their jobs: formerly unionized manufacturing workers from the Rust Belt, for example. These people need to be helped with government assitance, both in terms of welfare, and training, so that they can find new jobs and make ends meet in the meanwhile.
The type of syllogism being used in the given sentence is a conditional syllogism.
<h3>What is Syllogism?</h3>
This refers to the use of reasoning in order to draw conclusions about something based on two premises.
Hence, we can see that conditional syllogism was used in the given premises and this is because it made use of either-or to show that if the sidewalk was wet, then that means that it must have rained.
This reasoning is faulty because there are different possible reasons for the sidewalk to be wet and not just rainfall.
Read more about syllogism here:
brainly.com/question/361872
Answer:
Invest
invest
Explanation:
Game theory looks at the interactions between participants in a competitive game and calculates the best choice for the player.
Dominant strategy is the best option for a player regardless of what the other player is playing
firm a can either earn20 or 70 if it advertises or 5 or 50 if it does not advertise. this is the same for firm B.
Thus the option that would yield the highest payoff is for both firms to advertise.
this is an example of prisoners dilemma
Answer:
The answer is Lola should acknowledge a $3,000 from this distribution.
Explanation:
From the question given, we say that, Lola should acknowledge a $3,000 from this distribution.
Recall that
The Cash Distributed cash = $ 25,000
The Basis in this ownership of interest is = $22,000
The Gain = $3,000
Lola basis after the distribution is zero.
Therefore Lola should accept this distribution of a $ 3000
