Answer:
The answer s d. an evolutionary perspective.
Explanation:
According to the evolutionary perspective to mate-choosing, people tend to look for potential partners that posses beneficial evolutionary traits, such as <u>fertility</u> and strenght. This is supported by the idea that humans and other animals seek to perpetuate the species, so they look for the best genetic characteristics available.
India is suddenly in the news for all the wrong reasons. It is now hitting the headlines as one of the most unequal countries in the world, whether one measures inequality on the basis of income or wealth.
So how unequal is India? As the economist Branko Milanovic says: “The question is simple, the answer is not.” Based on the new India Human Development Survey (IHDS), which provides data on income inequality for the first time, India scores a level of income equality lower than Russia, the United States, China and Brazil, and more egalitarian than only South Africa.
According to a report by the Johannesburg-based company New World Wealth, India is the second-most unequal country globally, with millionaires controlling 54% of its wealth. With a total individual wealth of $5,600 billion, it’s among the 10 richest countries in the world – and yet the average Indian is relatively poor.
Compare this with Japan, the most equal country in the world, where according to the report millionaires control only 22% of total wealth.
In India, the richest 1% own 53% of the country’s wealth, according to the latest data from Credit Suisse. The richest 5% own 68.6%, while the top 10% have 76.3%. At the other end of the pyramid, the poorer half jostles for a mere 4.1% of national wealth.
What’s more, things are getting better for the rich. The Credit Suisse data shows that India’s richest 1% owned just 36.8% of the country’s wealth in 2000, while the share of the top 10% was 65.9%. Since then they have steadily increased their share of the pie. The share of the top 1% now exceeds 50%.
This is far ahead of the United States, where the richest 1% own 37.3% of total wealth. But India’s finest still have a long way to go before they match Russia, where the top 1% own a stupendous 70.3% of the country’s wealth.
Answer: your question is not properly arranged. Please let me assume your question to be arranged this way:
People who use artificial sweeteners in place of sugar tend to be heavier than people who use sugar, thus we can conclude that artificial sweeteners are detrimental to weight loss efforts. This is an example of: Group of answer choices
a. Extrapolation
b. Misuse of cause and effect
c. influential outlier
THE ANSWER: a. Extrapolation
Explanation: Extrapolation is the conclusion of a general events using a specific event. It means estimating or concluding something by assuming a current method will continue to exist or will remain applicable to every other method, without any scientific proof or experiment in the lab or workshop.
In this content, this person has extrapolated artificial sweetener to be a cause of weight gain. Which may not be applied to everyone using artificial sweeteners. His research was concluded based on the people he meet, without considering the fact that, he has not meet everyone yet.
This is not misuse of cause and effect, because they is no proof yet, that artificial sweeteners is the cause of their weight gain.
This is not Influential outlier, because may have not deviated totally from some other observations of people using artificial sweeteners to people using sugar.
The answer to your question has to be B
I believe that COnfucius was very influential. He has not only affected the lives of people that he had met, talked to, and educated, but also people today. His work is still being shown in school, thousands of years following his death.
