Answer:
they divide and separate a lot of different people who have different views
Explanation:
I'm not positive, but that's definitely the best of the options
Answer:
c) critical thinking.
Explanation:
Critical thinking: The term critical thinking is defined as the tendency of an individual to make reasoned judgment that is being considered as well-though off and logical.
Critical thinking is defined as a way in which an individual thinks by not simply accepting every conclusions and arguments that he or she encountered yet carry an attitude of questioning the same.
In the question above, Melinda's concerns best illustrated critical thinking.
Answer:
c
Explanation:
because humans don't have the ability and power to create natural resources
Answer:
Explanation:
Manners are social behaviors that help us build and strengthen
relationship and this is because;
Good manners can result to no conflict , disputes or little conflict because messages can be delivered without any form of risk and this strengthens relationship.
Good manners make people not to want to take revenge or be an hindrance on the way of others.
It form connections with people even those they are closed too. With good connections people can gain lot of opportunities like employment and the rest. Good connections bring about great gain.
There is better cooperation between people and there are bond of respects that will be created.
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.
