Answer:
I believe that the best answer here lies somewhere in the middle. I believe that interest groups can be beneficial for society, and democracy in general, when they seek to ensure that a government really works towards the good of all people through their lobbying actions, but they can also be a bad thing when their purposes are only to benefit the group and not society at large. For example, when you take such interest groups as workers movements, you see this middle ground. Their protests, and lobbying in Congress, have ensured that policies in favor of laborers have been passed, improved, and maintained. In this instance, interest groups have exerted a positive influence on democracy. But, when they simply start to pressure for measures that can only benefit their particular group, to the detriment of other members of society, then, they are not so good.
There is also the issue that interest groups, especially when they become pretty powerful and influential, can begin to exert too much pressure and interfere with policies that have been good for the general public, but that do not benefit their particular interests. So in this case, interest groups are not too good for democracy. However, on the other side of that same coin, interest groups that seek to pressure for the benefit of the general population, to have policies in favor of such things as healthcare, social programs, etc., can be very beneficial to democracy.
Finally, interest groups are a way in which the people in a country can have influence on their government, aside from representatives that are elected. These groups, if they have elected officials, can exert pressure so that the people´s interests, and desires, are met. It is a way to keep government balanced and within the scope of: rule for the people and by the people.
Christanity is most definitely the biggest religion practiced in America
You must have her sign a scope of appointment form, indicating which products she wishes to discuss, and note on the form that she is a "walk in. " You may then proceed with the discussion.
You have just committed an attributional bias called "the fundamental attribution error."
The fundamental attribution error is the inclination individuals need to overemphasize individual qualities and disregard situational factors in judging others' conduct. As a result of the fundamental attribution error, we have a tendency to trust that others do awful things since they are terrible individuals.
Options:
A. claim of fact
B. claim of definition
C. claim of policy
D<span>. claim of value
The answer would be option D "</span>claim of value." A claim of value is a claim that is used when a person makes a judgment, express approval or disapproval, or attempt to prove that some action, belief, or condition is right or wrong<span>. So, in this case the person is saying is wrong to vote which is stating's that this is wrong which would mean it's a claim of value.
Hope this helps!</span>
