The Yes Men focus their hoaxes on big corporations to gain the attention of the public as well as showing that they care for their customers.
I hope this is the answer you were looking for and that it helps!! :)
The information you need to know regarding daytime sits is provided here.
No matter what you do, spending a lot of time sitting up increases your risk of illness and early mortality. Regardless of how often a person exercises, the amount of time they spend sitting down during the day is associated to a higher risk of developing heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and mortality.
The amount of time a person spends sitting during the day is associated with an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and mortality, even if they regularly exercise.
Overseeing the experiment was Dr. David Alter, a senior scientist at the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute. He said that more than half of the average person's day is spent sitting, watching television, or using a computer.
to learn about sits during the day from the link.
brainly.com/question/28502492
#SPJ9
In the sentence "These days, parents neglect to watch their children's social media use", we find an example of the hasty generalization fallacy.
Hasty generalization does not present enough evidence to support the argument made and, therefore, generalizes a fact. In the sentence above, there is an affirmation that parents do not watch their children's social media use. How can the speaker state this? Who are these parents: all of them? Just a percentage? What about the parents who do watch their kids' use of social media? Do they not count?
As for the other options given, let's take a look at a brief description of what they mean:
Non sequitur is when a conclusion does not follow the evidence presented. It's an absurd conclusion, considering the information given. --> People like watching movies. Movies have violence. Therefore, having some violence happen to people is desirable.
Post hoc is a fallacy in which the speaker assumes there is a connection between events simply because they happened one after the other. That is, if B happened after A, then B happened because of A. --> If it rained after I had an ice cream, then it rained because I had the ice cream.
False analogy happens when the speaker analyzes two different facts under the same point of view and conditions, drawing a conclusion that is far-fetched. --> Monica is from South America. Alice is also from South America. Therefore, Monica and Alice are from the same country.
