Answer: (D) Scapegoating
Explanation:
According to the given example, the illegal migrants are basically the victims of the scapegoating. The scapegoating is the tendency in which someone can blame to other person for their own problems.
The scapegoating is the process of sociological explanation of the prejudice and the discrimination. The scapegoating fills in as a chance to clarify disappointment or offenses, while keeping up one's sure mental self portrait.
Answer:
Mixed economy.
Explanation:
A <u>mixed economy</u> is an economic system where elements of free market and government interventionism are mixed together. It takes a middle ground between a laissez faire economy, where state intervention is minimal or non-existant, and a planned economy, where the state is in charge of the whole economic system.
In Suburbia, individuals, businesses and the government all control resources and means of production. The governments also distributes goods and services through social programs. These are all elements of a mixed economy.
Answer:
While the new helmets <em>decrease </em>the probability of a concussion resulting from each individual collision, at the same time the new helmets could also give football players an incentive to play more <em>recklessly</em>, which could potentially <em>increase </em>the amount of violent collisions and thus the number of concussions suffered by NFL players, all else equal.
Explanation:
The <u>human factor </u>is an important matter to consider in matters like these.
Technical solutions, like the introduction of new helmets, may improve the situation when it comes to equipment, but it is the fact that players know that new helmets are stronger and thus they are more protected, would result in a new reckless <em>behavior</em>.
With the introduction of new helmets, players would become less motivated to play carefully, because they would know that the new helmets allow them to do so. The curious question would be to ask is this one. If players do not know that their helmets are safer, would they play more recklessly or not?
Answer:
C. the good a person can do by being a positive acting force
Explanation:
The philosophy of inaction promoted the idea that a society will reach its harmony if all people just conform normative order within society. It discouraged people to create some sort of action that disrupted that norms. Which is why it's called "philosophy of inaction"
But a problem arise when the social norms itself is very problematic. Under that situation, completely conforming to that norm will keep a certain group of people felt miserable without ever experiencing a change.
For example, Treating peasants like the were lower human being was considered normal. Because it is a norm in most societies to obey the nobles like they were some sort of higher human beings. If people did not act to make a change and all people followed Lao Tzu's philosophy, this situation will probably still exist today.
Judicial activism would make a justice more likely to alter acts of other branches of government
Judicial Activism :
Judicial activism interprets the Constitution to be in favor of contemporary values. In judicial activism, judges are able to use their powers as judges in order to correct a constitutional legal injustice. In the matter of judicial activism, the judges have a great role in creating social policies in many different areas, especially the protection of civil rights and rights of the individual and public morality. The goal of judicial activism is to create policy change when it is needed in certain circumstances.
What role should judicial philosophy play?
Judicial philosophy plays a vital role in deciding which judges are appointed to court systems. While few judges adhere to a particular philosophy 100-percent of the time, most possess an overall philosophy that is conservative, liberal, or moderate
Learn more about judicial philosophy :
brainly.com/question/20780922
#SPJ4
