Answer:
It is an example of scheduled obsolescence.
Explanation:
The new line of affordable cars does appeal to lower-income groups, however, they are not a safe long term investment.
In the industry it became common to sell low price products (that appeals to the masses) that also have low durability, thus forcing the buyer to purchase a newer model in a short amount of time.
This process takes advantage of the fact that the low-income part of the population doesn't have the means to make a long term investment on a higher quality product.
This process is called scheduled obsolescence, for its intentionally lack of durability.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Congressman has to respond to the Big Pizza Lobby taking these considerations in mind.
Congressman has to realize the impact of the presence of this big "company" in the market. Not only for other industries that cannot compete with this huge company but the impact it has on consumers.
The congressman would propose the kind of bill that benefits free trade, competence, and benefits consumers in a free market.
The big company is not going to stay "arms-folded." The company is going to hire lobbyists to negotiate with congressmen in order to promote its particular agendas and personal interests.
Of course, the big company wants to change the rules against it, and modify them to facilitate their interests. The negotiations can make legislators doubt or rethink a regulation. That is when Congressman has to think to support the interests of citizens, who were the ones who took him/her to office in the elections. So congressmen serve the people, not large companies.
its definitely the choice D.
Either elected by the general public or appointed by state and local representatives.
In the First Amendment, freedom of speech is expressly guaranteed, ensuring the right of citizens to assemble for any government-related purpose. Equality of association covers the actions of those gatherings and the structure of them. Examples of freedom of expression here in the United States include criticism of the government and the advancement of theories or opinions that some would perceive to be divisive. In the U.S., under the limits of the "offense principle," or the "harm principle," these types of statements are permitted. I hope this helps.
