<u>Answer:</u>
Telemarketers know that anyone who agrees to listen to a pitch is more likely to buy the product, thanks to the foot-in-the-door phenomenon.
<u>Explanation:</u>
- 'Foot-in-the-door phenomenon' is the phenomenon of persuading someone to agree upon a big request after them 'agreeing to a small request'.
- This phenomenon is based on a principle that when a person agrees upon a small request, there is development of bond between the requester and request.
- This development of bond will help the requester to make request agree upon his request.
- In the above case, if a person agrees to listen to the polite pitches of telemarketers, there is agreement on small request and the probability to buy a product will increase because there is development of bond between them.
Answer:
Reduction.
Explanation:
The retired, unemployed and disabled persons should expect a smaller payment in the future as compared to current and past payment a recipients have received. According to recent Social Security Trustees' report, future recipients can expect a 21% benefit cut which experience aa reduction as compared to growth. Current new recipients experience a reduction in future payments if they live long enough at least around age 84.
Answer:
A firm in monopolistic competition does not take full advantage of its economies of scale because it's the only oferent of a good. A firm in perfect competition produces at the lowest average cost possible.
Explanation:
Question:
Why do you think Lincoln didn't end slavery in the north?
Answer:
The proclamation didn't end slavery because it didn't affect the border slave states that weren't in rebellion, and it had no immediate effect in most of the deep South because, at least on the day it was issued, the slaves were in territory still controlled by the Confederacy.
Explanation:
Abraham Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. The nation’s founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word “slavery” in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count enslaved people for the purposes of representation in the federal government.
In a three-hour speech in Peoria, Illinois, in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral, legal and economic opposition to slavery—and then admitted he didn’t know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system.
Abolitionists, by contrast, knew exactly what should be done about it: Slavery should be immediately abolished, and freed enslaved people should be incorporated as equal members of society. They didn’t care about working within the existing political system, or under the Constitution, which they saw as unjustly protecting slavery and enslavers. Leading abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell,” and went so far as to burn a copy at a Massachusetts rally in 1854.
-Alan Becker
