The correct answers are <span>delusion; despite clear contradictory evidence.
Answer 1: A delusion is an erroneous or unfounded belief that a person is convinced of. Delusions are beliefs that are usually fixed and firm in a person's mind. An example of a delusion is strongly believing and being convinced that someone is "out to get you" because of far-fetched scenarios and beliefs you have conjured up in your imagination (you arrived at this belief without any external evidence).
Answer 2: Another aspect of delusions is that they are firmly held despite </span><span>clear contradictory evidence. Let's consider the previous example again: You believe that someone is out to get you and you hold this belief with strong conviction even when there is no evidence supporting it. For instance the person you feel threatened by has not behaved or acted in any way to suggest that they might harm or hurt you.However, despite this, you still believe that he or she is out to get you.
In this way, </span><span>a delusion is an erroneous belief that is fixed and firmly held despite clear contradictory evidence. </span>
True ,Early humans were able to move out Asia into North America during an Ice Age because of a land bridge.
A true statement about the instinctive aiming method would be: <span>This method takes longer to perfect than the bowsight method.
</span> instinctive aiming method is a bowing method that require the archer to judge the distance from the target without having to waste too much time. It's considered a more advanced method compared to other method of aiming.
Answer:The Statute is an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause.
Explanation:The Statute is an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause. Regulation of foreign commerce is exclusively a federal power because of the need for the federal government to speak with one voice when regulating commercial relations with foreign governments. The existence of legitimate state interests underlying state legislation will not justify state regulation of foreign commerce. The state statute, in imposing requirements for a license costing $50 and for a clear marking of goods as being from a foreign country, clearly is an attempt by the state to restrict or even eliminate the flow of such goods in foreign commerce. Thus, the statute is unconstitutional.
