Answer:
a. Social Intelligence
Explanation:
Social Intelligence refers to some intelligence where the person gets to know the behaviour of a person by their way of working and knowing them in person.
This is generally referred to as a tact where the person uses his common sense to address the problem or situation in hand.
Here, in the given instance, Fatima is a manager, and has to inform an employee about his tardiness, and as the employee might feel embarrassed in front of his colleagues, she makes sure that the person does not feel bad and accordingly chooses a time where she can talk to him personally about this instance.
So that he shall not feel embarrassed in front of his colleagues and inferior in any manner.
Here, she uses social intelligence as a tact to overcome this situation, and normalise the tardiness of her employee.
Answer: Loyalists were strongest in the Carolinas and Georgia and weakest in New England. Some remained loyalists because they were members of the Anglican Church, headed by King George III.
Answer: A. designating an anti-charity should be more effective because loss aversion will provide additional motivation
.
Options:
A. designating an anti-charity should be more effective because loss
aversion will provide additional motivation
B. designating a charity should be more effective because it avoids all potential for loss
C. it shouldn’t matter whether one designates a charity or anti-charity
D. self-interest biases generally keep people from choosing the anti-charity
Explanation:
The study of behavioral Economics shows that people are more driven by the loss of fear than the hope of gain. This is known as loss aversion. In commitment contracts where penalty money is promised to a charity or an anti-charity if the goal is not achieved, those who promise their money to an anti-charity tend to achieve their goals more. The same also applies when comparing this group and those who do not have to forego anything if they do not meet their target.
This is because giving to a charity will still seem beneficial while losing the money to an anti-charity will seem like a total loss.
True, because as time goes on, cultures mix and evolve according to what resources are available.
