People often conduct different kinds of studies. This study would best be described as systematic observational studies.
<h3>What is a systematic observational study?</h3>
Systematic observation studies is known to be a type of studies where the specification of the time of actions, attributes, or other variables are known to be documented or recorded and also the right steps to how they are to be recorded is also done.
Here, as compared to Lisa, The intent is to make sure that, under the same or quite similar scenario, all observers will have the same kind of results.
learn more about systematic observational from
brainly.com/question/10992959
1. No because he did not give everyone a chance on what got voted on.
2. He could have let everyone vote on ideas and shorten the ideas to vote on in the end. So everyone have a fair chance.
3. Letting them come up with ideas of their own.
The fallacy that is described by your friend's belief that there is no more segregation is B) legalistic fallacy.
<h3>What is legalistic fallacy?
</h3>
This is the belief that there is no more racism in a certain sector simply because there are laws that exist against that sort of racism.
Your friend here does not believe in racist segregation because there are laws against it so this must be a legalistic fallacy.
In conclusion, option B is correct.
Find out more on racial fallacies at brainly.com/question/26683818.
Answer:
Nature vs Nurture
Explanation:
According to my research on studies conducted by various psychologists, I can say that based on the information provided within the question this clearly involves a debate over Nature vs Nurture. This is a debate trying to see whether human behavior is determined by the environment surrounding (nature) a person's social life, or if it is caused by a person's genes (nurture).
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
