I think its a. lamb of god
hope it helped
Answer:
a win-win solution
Explanation:
In simple words, A win-win agreement or solution can be understood as a close examination of both your own as well as your opponent's positions in order to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion that offers you both as much as practicable. That will be considered a win scenario if both of you are satisfied with the outcome of the transaction.
Thus, from the above we can conclude that the given case illustrates the lack of win win solution.
i think that the answer is A or C. that might help you a little bit
Answer:
d. Internal coherence demonstrates the rational relationship between parts of a hypothesis.
Explanation:
The<u> statement "d" best describes the internal coherence of a hypothesis </u>because if the different parts of a hypothesis aren't coherent with each other, aren't related, there's no internal coherence in the first place. All the different parts have to have a rational relationship, have to be rational with each other.
Answer:
pluralistic ignorance
Explanation:
Pluralistic ignorance refers to the social phenomenon that arises when particular members of a group assume that others within their group have comparatively extreme attitudes, values, or behaviors. It is based on the notion that people wrongly guess about the beliefs and values of a group. Therefore, when several members of any group have the same misconception of the group standard, this standard fails to reflect the group's real composite beliefs and attitudes.
