The phenomenon is known specifically as the change
blindness. This is a phenomenon where in the observer has fail to notice the
differences that has been laid out to him or her when a certain visual stimulus
is triggered or the observer is exposed to.
It's definitely not in a theocracy: those usually favour the majorities.
Also migrant labors don't specifically favour minorities.
Now, between democracies and command economies the choice is very hard, as it depends more on the specific country. So for example in many places the role of the minorities rose in command economies, since they went against the patriarchy (in China this was the case for example, the role of women in China improved drastically, while women and minorities are still struggling in Japan, which is a democracy). On the other hand, Nazi Germany was also a command economy, and yet it was very bad for minorities
I would say that the question is too complex to give just one answer, but I would also argue for option d)
Answer:
The English Bill of Rights encouraged a form of government where the rights and liberties of individuals were protected. ... For example, the 1791 U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech, trial by jury and protection from cruel and unusual punishment
Explanation:
The answer is "more confident".
As per cognitive dissonance theory, there is a propensity for people to look for consistency among their comprehensions (i.e., convictions, conclusions). At the point when there is an irregularity between states of mind or practices (disharmony), something must change to dispose of the dissonance. On account of an inconsistency amongst states of mind and conduct, it is probably that the attitude will change to oblige the conduct.