Answer. The ssdp a necessity in the context of Nepal in the following ways: Access to basic and secondary schools improved. This output will help implement a revised pro-poor scholarship program in all 75 districts, and will include targeted interventions for girls to take up secondary science education
Answer:
Sunk-cost fallacy.
Explanation:
The sunk-cost fallacy refers to the behavior done by the individuals when they continue such behavior because they already invested resources on it (time, money, effort).
In this example, <u>Les invested money on the megaphone of root beer,</u> he starts drinking it but <u>he becomes full, nevertheless he keeps drinking it </u>(even when his friend tells him he will get sick) <u>because he "bought it and not going to waste one drop of it"</u>
<u>Less continues drinking the root beer even though he's already full because he thinks he already invested money on buying it.</u>
Thus, this is an example of the sunk-cost fallacy.
Answer: False
Explanation: The statement in the question describes Stimulus Equivalence.
Contingency Adduction occurs when an individual acquires a new behaviour through conditioning and another contingency adds it to its own range of behaviors.
Stimulus equivalence on the other hand is when more than one different stimuli get the same response. Similar to the response in a situation where conditioning did not take place, although the response is accurate, it has not been reinforced.
#1 is correct
#2 is the grand canyon
3# is water
Let me know if this helps!!