Answer: Gambler's fallacy
Explanations: Gambler's fallacy can be simply defined as a phenomenon where the outcome of an event is viewed as less or more likely due to the outcome of previous events even though each event is independent.
For example, If a family should give birth to (5) five boys, gambler's fallacy will argue that the chance or probability of the family giving birth to girl next higher because the previous ones were boys, but in reality the chances are thesame because both gender has equally chance of being conceived.
So Miranda’s statement is a good example of gambler's fallacy because she argue that the probability that she will toss a tail in her sixth toss is higher than 50% and in reality, the probability of tossing a head or a tail are both thesame i.e 50%.
<span>I had a question like this various Economics classes, as part of producer theory, trade, and overall economic growth. So I hope this translates to History as well.
The answer is C) Specialization leads to interdependence.
Why? If a country (or region, or industry) specializes in producing one thing, they will need to trade in order to get the other things they need.
A and D both go against this logic and are wrong. Specialization means picking something you are good at (producing at a lower price than others), and using all your resources for it.
B is probably wrong because it just seems silly. Not everyone will get rich. That's also part of Economics - there are ups and downs in the economy, there will always be some unemployment, etc.</span>
Answer:
pluralistic ignorance
Explanation:
Pluralistic ignorance refers to the social phenomenon that arises when particular members of a group assume that others within their group have comparatively extreme attitudes, values, or behaviors. It is based on the notion that people wrongly guess about the beliefs and values of a group. Therefore, when several members of any group have the same misconception of the group standard, this standard fails to reflect the group's real composite beliefs and attitudes.
I think that the answer would be A because it doesn’t say anything about the president or justices/judicial court. Hope this helps!
