<span><span>The setting and circumstances in which a literary work is written
or an event occurs are called its historical context.</span> The historical context refers to the social conditions,
religious, economic and politics that existed during once and place determined.
It is what allows us to interpret and to analyze jobs or events of the past
instead of simply to judge them according to the contemporary standards</span>
Answer:
My guess would be C: The government might have to hire people from other countries.
Answer:
Tree of Jiva and Atman.
Explanation:
The Tree of Jiva and Atman appears in the Vedic scriptures concerning the soul. ... This separating forgetfulness is maha-maya, or enthrallment, spiritual death, and constitutes the fall of the jiva into the world of material birth, death, disease and old age.
Answer:
Factory polutes river as much as the law allows.
Explanation:
Tragedy of the commons is a situation in the shared-resources system where agends, acting in accordance with their self-interest, behave contrary to the common good of all users. Commons are considered to be any shared resources such as atmosphere, rivers, roads, highways, which are unregulated. For a sustainable development, and surivival of the environment, river as the common good should avoid to be the subject of the tragedy of the commons, by not allowing factories to polute them at all. Instead, the law regulation should focus on making the factories become socially aware and to work towards sustainability.
The behaviour described above could be motivated by the so-called altruistic punishment.
The ultimatum game is a two-player game, in which the first player plays the role of the offeror while the second is the respondent. The first one is endowed with a certain amount of money (for example, 100 $) and has to make an offer about how to split it between the two of them. If the respondent accepts the offer, each player would receive the amount of money that had been proposed by the offeror. If the respondent does not accept, both will earn 0.
A respondent will accept any offer that maximizes his utility. If utility meant exactly the same as money earnings, the respondent would accept any offer in which he receives at least 1 $, as he would be left better off than before (when he had 0$). But this is not true, as in many cases the respondent would choose to punish the other player by refusing his offer so that both earn 0$, if he considers the other has done an unfair distribution. This behaviour is known as the altruistic punishment, as although the offeror is punished, he learns a lesson from it.
If the offeror had expected that possibility he would go for more egalitarian distributions, so that he makes sure the respondent does not punish him and both manage to earn some money. This is why in the end many proposers offer half of the money in the game.
