The answer should be B. States.
Answer:
Informational social influence
Explanation:
Informational social influence refers to action by which one person looks at the behaviors of others who are also in the same or similar situation to see how they behave. Then, this person can follow their lead. This action often happens when the person assumes that the other people know better and know how to behave in a situation and act accordingly.
In this case Samuela doesn't pay attention in class nor she studies. However <u>she's constantly looking for opportunities to cheat, looking at their neighbor's answers and assuming that they know better.</u>
We can see that <u>Manuela looks at the behaviors of the other students and their answers in order to follow their lead assuming they do know the answers.</u> Therefore, <u>her answers are based on informational social influence. </u>
Answer:For every football game there is a team that is expected to win by a certain number of points. In betting parlance, this is called the spread. If point spreads are accurate, we would expect about half of all games played to result in the favored team winning (beating the spread) and about half of all games to result in the team favored to not beat the spread. The accompanying data represent the results of 45 randomly selected games where a 0 indicates the favored team did not beat the spread and a 1 indicates the favored team beat the spread. Do the data suggest that sport books establish accurate spreads?
Explanation:
I am not 100% sure. But I do know the answer are not 2 and 3 are wrong. Hope that helps.
Answer:
C.S. Lewis states that moral law is not a simply convention . He says "there are two reasons for saying it belongs to the same class as mathematics. The first is, as I said in the first chapter, that though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great — not nearly so great as most people imagine — [...].The other reason is this. When you think about these differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? Have any of the changes been improvements? If not, then of course there could never be any moral progress. Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better. If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality."
Then the Law of Human Nature is compared as a standard or universal truth: "he moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others."
Reference: Lewis, C.S. “Some Objections .” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 1952
