Answer:
Children's advertisement is so easy because they can influence other children. Yet that is where the ethical problems start. Kids aren't smart enough to know what they're selling to marketers. Advertisers already know that kids are going to exercise large numbers of Influence on their parents and in doing so can be relentless. When both children and parents are most insecure. They are insecure because when they are exhausted and hungry in the grocery store, the child's fervent pleas often result in the parent purchasing those products. Children seem to want almost any marketed product because the distinction between what is true and what is pretended is often not understood by them. If an ad shows a toy doing an impressive feat, they assume that if they buy it, it will do that. Ads frequently contain false statements or exaggerated content. While these are preceded by a legislative note, they are usually overshadowed by the pomp and display of the commercials. Children advertising gets even worse it can cause all types of things for example obesity. Food firms spend almost $11 billion on TV ads annually, according to the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity. In addition, a study conducted in Brazil found that 50 percent of children's advertisement is food related, and 80 percent of those are unhealthy foods high in sugar, fat, and salt. Advertisements present the wrong notion that it makes kids good or content to eat a particular drink or fast food. Under the influence of such ads, children tend to demand to buy more unhealthy foods, leading to obesity. Another reason I think that children's advertising is bad because it can give them negative feelings. I say negative feelings because children can be affected by these ads and tend to equate themselves with their peers or believe that they are either superior or inferior to the rest. Such actions may either decrease their trust in themselves or make them feel superior to others.
Explanation:
Answer:
the third answer.
Explanation:
soccer shouldn't be capitalized
Answer:
Tintin arguably serves as a better Indiana Jones 4 than Kingdom of The Crystal Skull. The score, cinematography, and progressively intriguing plot make this film such a joy to watch. There’s whimsical action for the children (which bars few holds on the more gritty/dangerous side to adventuring) and the storytelling is done in such a way that people of all ages would find it hard not to be captivated. The visuals alone make this movie so much more than it probably ever dreamt of being. Never before had I seen such clearly cartoonish characters which I saw feasible of meeting in the real world. Every pore and hair follicle was met with such vigorous attention to detail, and yet these characters unmistakably resemble their respective source material. I was thoroughly taken aback at every turn of this movie, and the near photorealistic CGI certainly made it that much more fun to watch. A must-see for any fan of Speilberg’s finest work!
I'm not 100% sure because it's been a while since I have read the book, but I want to say it's B or the second choice given.
The excerpt from Tyson's preface or interview conveys the most emotion are This difference prevailed till August 2006.
<h3>What are the sayings of tyson?</h3>
Tyson says there may be no stigma connected to being categorized a "dwarf planet." In fact, Tyson says he thinks Pluto is a comet due to the fact it is often ice via way of means of volume. "If you slid Pluto to in which Earth is proper now, warmness from the solar might evaporate that ice, and it'd develop a tail," Tyson say.
The excerpt from Tyson's preface or interview conveys the most emotion was that This difference prevailed till August 2006. This excerpt is only informational, absolutely with out any emotional involvement. It simply specifies the term whilst a sure conviction becomes predominant.
Read more about Tyson's preface:
brainly.com/question/15423158
#SPJ1
