Answer:
the just-world hypothesis
Explanation:
When misfortunes befall a person, others sometimes think the victim of circumstances deserved what happened. One reason put forth to explain why someone would think like that has been called <u>the just-world hypothesis</u>.
The just-world hypothesis is the idea that people need to believe one will get what one deserves so strongly that they will rationalize an inexplicable injustice by naming things the victim might have done to deserve it.
Answer:
the state’s interest in regulating the matter.
Explanation:
The law in the state of Arizona affects the interstate commercial activities around trucking and the court would seek avenues to make sure that the unfavorable impacts of the law on interstate commerce gets balanced off with the interest of the state in regulating the matter. The court will not try to balance off that burden on interstate against non-commercial activities in the area or the authority of the courts to ascertain if a law is constitutional or not.
All other options stated above are incorrect except option C
True. By ruling out chance, bias and confounding, you can be able to determine that the association that is observed in the study is valid. These is because these are the main alternative explanations that can rule out that the association is causal
<span>A social cost would be the lack of a venue for a sporting team that would bring the community together and provide revenue. A social benefit would be the preserving of a natural space that can be shared and enjoyed by all for many uses.</span>