Answer:Fake News Makes It Harder For People To See the Truth
A Pew Research Center study found that those on the right and the left of the political spectrum have different ideas about the definition of 'fake news', "The Pew study suggests that fake-news panic, rather than driving people to abandon ideological outlets and the fringe, may actually be accelerating the process of polarization: It’s driving consumers to drop some outlets, to simply consume less information overall, and even to cut out social relationships."
This is why it is important for people to seek out news with as little bias as humanly possible. News services like AP News and Reuters strive to provide accurate, neutral coverage of major events.
Explanation:
The answer is: California
The purpose of that law is to ensure that the fund for the support could be allocated to other people that have better chance of living.
The total fund for health care is very limited, and not all citizens are eligible to obtain the service that they need. When further treatment is judged as futile, pumping more money to the treatment would not bring any positive value to that patient. But, if it's allocated to other patient with higher priority,government's investment for that patient wouldn't become a waste.
Answer: An NS can be turned into CS by using it with a UCS during the process of conditioning. We can tell that the NS is now a CS by determining whether the UCR is triggered by CS or not.
Explanation: Once a neutral stimulus is used with a conditioned stimulus, the subject treats both the stimulus as one in later instances. For example, during the course of conditioning, if a bell (neutral stimulus) is used with a piece of meat (unconditioned stimulus), the subject (in this case, a god) relates the both with each other and treats it as one.
Term used for a situation in which paired-choice voting by majority rule fails to produce a consistent ranking of society's preferences for public goods is the paradox of voting.
The paradox of voting, also known as Downs' paradox, states that the costs of voting usually outweigh the expected benefits for a rational, self-interested voter. Because the likelihood of exercising the pivotal vote is negligible in comparison to any reasonable estimate of the private individual benefits of the various possible outcomes, the expected benefits of voting outweigh the costs.
Responses to the paradox of voting have included the belief that voters vote to express their preference for a candidate rather than to influence the outcome of the election, that voters exercise some altruism, or that the paradox ignores the collateral benefits associated with voting that are not related to the resulting electoral outcome.
Learn more about paradox of voting here:
brainly.com/question/17136492
#SPJ4
