A change in supply that is to the right or downward will cause the equilibrium quantity to increase and the equilibrium price to decrease.
Given that the supply curve is often upward sloping in the case of a shifting demand curve, an upward or rightward change in the demand curve will result in a higher equilibrium price and equilibrium quantity.
Similarly, a shift in the demand curve to the left or downward will typically provide a lower equilibrium price and a smaller equilibrium quantity.
Depending on how the supply curve is shaped, a movement in the demand curve may cause a higher absolute change in the equilibrium price or quantity. The equilibrium quantity will fluctuate primarily if the supply curve is relatively flat or elastic.
To learn more about the Demand curve refer to:
brainly.com/question/13828738
#SPJ1
Answer:
Role construct repertory test
Explanation:
A role construct repertory test was proposed by Kelly. This test is about an individual to understand his/her world around him and to know the people who are around him.
This test allows a person to describe himself in his way. In this test, the person has to tell the name of the person whom he knows. After that, the person has to compare himself from the listed three people whom he knows. For instance, a person can compare with father, mother, and self and tell about the similarities and dissimilarities among three people.
Answer:
His perception.
Explanation:
The term perception applies to the way people are able to process information from the environment. This describes how people organize, interpret and experience their reality. It can also be understood as the psychological result of physical sensation (although not all sensations result in perception). In this case, Carl's judgement has been influenced by his perception, as he perceives the attitudes and intentions of the team in a personal and particular way, which might not be the way in which the team actually intends to act.
Iberian Peninsula, with a focus on Spain in particular. Peninsulares were Spanish born Spanish citizens residing in the New World and stood at the top of the food chain in the New World.
“Crime” is not a phenomenon that can be defined according to any objective set of criteria. Instead, what a particular state, legal regime, ruling class or collection of dominant social forces defines as “crime” in any specific society or historical period will reflect the political, economic and cultural interests of such forces. By extension, the interests of competing political, economic or cultural forces will be relegated to the status of “crime” and subject to repression,persecution and attempted subjugation. Those activities of an economic, cultural or martial nature that are categorized as “crime” by a particular system of power and subjugation will be those which advance the interests of the subjugated and undermine the interests of dominant forces. Conventional theories of criminology typically regard crime as the product of either “moral” failing on the part of persons labeled as “criminal,” genetic or biological predispositions towards criminality possessed by such persons, “social injustice” or“abuse” to which the criminal has previously been subjected, or some combination of these. (Agnew and Cullen, 2006) All of these theories for the most part regard the “criminal as deviant” perspective offered by established interests as inherently legitimate, though they may differ in their assessments concerning the matter of how such “deviants” should be handled. The principal weakness of such theories is their failure to differentiate the problem of anti-social or predatory individual behavior<span> per se</span><span> from the matter of “crime” as a political, legal, economic and cultural construct. All human groups, from organized religions to outlaw motorcycle clubs, typically maintain norms that disallow random or unprovoked aggression by individuals against other individuals within the group, and a system of penalties for violating group norms. Even states that have practiced genocide or aggressive war have simultaneously maintained legal prohibitions against “common” crimes. Clearly, this discredits the common view of the state’s apparatus of repression and control (so-called “criminal justice systems”) as having the protection of the lives, safety and property of innocents as its primary purpose.</span>
