The Union was dedicated to the defeat and termination of the Confederate States of America, informally called "the Confederacy" or "the South".
Answer:
The anwer is the availability heuristic.
Explanation:
The availability heuristic is a thinking bias that occurs when a person reccurs to immediately aviable, usually recent information to back up his thoughts or beliefs.
In the example, Mariah is assuming that her two best friends' situation can be applied for a larger population, <u>simply because that's the available information for her</u>.
Holland did not lose New Netherland through force. Nieuw Amsterdam was New York from 1664 to 1673, but in that year it became Dutch once more, this time under the name Nieuw Oranje, `New Orange.' ... The Anglo-Dutch<span> war was ended by the Treaty of Westminster of 1674.</span>
The languages spoken in the Caribbean are mostly either European langauges (which shows that those areas were conquered by Europeans) or European-based creoles (which shows that the conquest was more "messy" than in the US: there was less strict connection with the European countries and more mixing among peoples).
Indigenous languages are no longer spoken(or by very few people), which shows the fate of the indigenous people there...
This question is missing the options. I've found the complete question online. It is as follows:
Although the leaders of two enemy nations admit to a buildup of their own military forces, each sees the other country's actions as unreasonable and motivated by evil intentions. This situation best illustrates:
the mere exposure effect.
the just-world phenomenon.
mirror-image perceptions.
deindividuation.
social facilitation.
None of the listed answers are correct
Answer:
This situation best illustrates mirror-image perceptions.
Explanation:
The term mirror-image perception refers to the human tendency of viewing others as the enemy, as evil, especially in a situation of conflict. It is called mirror-image because both people or sides involved in the conflict see themselves as good, and the other as the villain. That is precisely the case described in the passage. Both leaders do not see a problem concerning their own buildup of their military forces - they "know" they are doing it for good reasons. But both of them also think that the other leader doing it is a sign of evil intentions on his part.