B. family is the answer I believe
La respuesta correcta para esta pregunta abierta es la siguiente.
A pesar de que no hay opciones o incisos para responder, podemos comentar lo siguiente.
El antecedente históricos del conflicto entre Argentina y el Reino Unido con respecto a las Malvinas fue el siguiente.
Ambos países, Argentina y Gran Bretaña, reconocían a las Malvinas como su territorio. Los Ingleses afirmaban que ellos lo habían descubierto y les pertenecía. Por otro lado, Argentina decía que por su proximidad geográfica con el territorio Argentino y la lejanía de las Malvinas de Inglaterra, esas islas debían pertenecer a la Argentina.
El conflicto escaló y llegó hasta la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU), quien reconoció ese territorito como en disputa internacional.
Cabe mencionar que hasta ese momento, Gran Bretaña era quien administraba esas islas.
Por esa razón, Argentina decidió invadir las Malvinas en abril de 1982, acto que hizo que Inglaterra mandara a su flota Naval para recuperar las Malvinas.
La Marina Británica desembarcó en las islas en 21 de mayo de 1982, y se inició la guerra con la Batalla de San Carlos.
<span>To divide we the people to weaken us, set us against each other with blame games and propaganda. Party loyalty blinders keep us from watching too closely what our own party representatives are doing against our own interests.
Like professional wrestlers they appear to be bitter rivals in public but are the best of friends behind closed doors. They have led us to think that only someone from their parties can win an election. If we vote for a third party candidate we have "thrown our vote away" on someone who stands no chance of winning and let that "evil other party" candidate win. We feel compelled to vote for the "lesser" of the two evils being offered.
Consider this: Both parties of the Senate said that the TARP bill lacked oversight to protect the taxpayer's money (concerning the original 3 page one passed by the House of Representatives). They claimed they were going to add protection and oversight to it. Then behind closed doors they added 137 pages of earmark spending and NO oversight or protection. Bush signed it and they closed the 110 Session of Congress knowing that they had an automatic pay raise in place. Both parties were involved so no evil other party blame games could be played.
Instead they faked outrage when the AIG bonus news came out and blamed the Management for not following rules which they had failed to put into the TARP bill in the first place. Watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6KRXnYgu...</span>
Answer:
Normative social influence
Explanation:
Normative social influence: In social psychology, the term normative social influence is defined as a form of social influence that often leads to conformity. In other words, an individual conforms according to the other members in a particular group or situation to be liked or accepted by the other person. It is being moderated by social support and group size.
Example: Peer pressure.
In the question above, the statement illustrates the power of normative social influence.
