Answer:
The statement which is the best argument against Social Darwinism is:
B. A good work ethic can eliminate a lot of the disadvantages of poverty.
Explanation:
Social Darwinism is a philosophy that incorporates notions taken from Darwinism, applying them to sciences such as sociology and economics. As we know, <u>Darwinism is based on the idea of "survival of the fittest". Therefore, Social Darwinism explains differences in status, wealth, and success by stating that those who have those things are better than those who do not. In other words, if someone is poor or unsuccessful, that means that person is not "evolved" enough.</u>
The problem with Social Darwinism is that is justifies discrimination and imperialism. It places the blame on those who are actually suffering the consequences of a broken and unfair system. With that in mind, we can easily eliminate options A and C, since they agree with Social Darwinism. Option D can also be eliminated because it merely states a fact that is true, but does not refute Social Darwinism.<u> Letter B is the best option. It argues that there is a way to eliminate many of the disadvantages, that is, it shows the problem with the system, refuting Social Darwinism.</u>
I hope this answers your question.
For the researcher to be able to effectively study how the amygdala reacts when participants watch emotional videos, he can use FMRI technology to answer this question.
<h3 /><h3>Functional Magnetic Resonance</h3>
It is a technique that is based on measuring brain activity according to changes in blood flow, because when an area of the brain is active, there is also an increase in blood flow to that area.
This exam is effective for mapping activities in the brain of humans and animals, through the analysis of images that show a change in blood flow according to a certain exposure of the individual.
It is necessary to use contrast to perform this exam, which can also be useful for electroencephalography and brain physiology exams.
The correct answer is:
- Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (FMRI)
Find out more about Functional Magnetic Resonance here:
brainly.com/question/7495806
A tyrant would say that they are in charge, that there won't be a democracy, and would then possibly arrest or kill the people who are asking.
I believe the answer is: It would be narrow
Judicial restraint is the view that encourages encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. This would force the judge to interpret the constitution limited to only things that explicitly written in the constitution, without any chance to make adjustment to changing norms or technology.
