Answer:
An inferior good.
Explanation:
Normal Good
This is simply known as goods whose demand increases as income of people rises and the demand falls also when there is a fall in income.
Inferior Good
This is simply known as goods that their demand reduced or decreases when the income of consumers do rises and also the demand also rises when consumer income falls. This is quite different fro. normal goods, for which the opposite is observed.
An increase in disposable income simply shows that the demand curve shifts rightwards and it depend largely o whether the goods is a normal goods or inferior goods.
Answer:
c) illogical thinking.
Explanation:
Illogical thinking: The term illogical thinking is defined as the specific use of logical things or bugs in leading rationalization exercise.
In an illogical thinking, an individual or client is asked to demonstrate a particular behavior whether his or behavior or someone else's behavior. If the client's reasoning is intelligible and rational overall, then a small logical bug sticks together as a sore thumb.
In the question above, the cognitive theorists would say that her depression results in large part from illogical thinking.
Answer:
Prayers
Explanation:
a) Necklaces are material -- you can hold them and touch them
b) Vases are material
c) Artifacts are material
d) Prayers are <em>not</em> material. You can't touch or hold them.
Answer: A) 5 years of age.
Explanation:
Pro-social behavior is defined as social behavioral characteristics that is performed for benefit of others. These traits include sharing things, helping act, volunteering etc.
According to the question, Jessica can belong to 5 year old age group as she expecting other benefit by providing benefit.She is sharing her cookie with expectation of getting chocolate from her friend.
Other options are incorrect because 4 year old might display reactive pro-social behavior or not aware about benefit concept .Thus, the correct option is option(A).
The case should be on the venue where Austin bought the infected formula manufactured by Nestle USA Inc.
It doesn't affect if the baby was born in South Carolina: They cant say the alleged harm occur there just because the baby was born there. The harm occurred where Austin bought the formula by Nestle, if the formula was bought in Minnesota, South Carolina shouldn't be involved in this case just because Austin's residency.
The case shouldn't be transferred, the final verdict it should be determined by the laws of the state where the harm object (In this case the formula) was bought and consumed.
