Answer:
Bargaining
Explanation:
Elizabeth Kubler-Ross developed a theory according to which people go through 5 different stages in the process of dying and grief:
- Denial: First, the person cannot accept the diagnosis from the doctors or can think there is a mistake and that he/she cannot be dying.
- Anger: In this stage, the person gets angry, usually at God, and gets upset and often wonders why is this happening to him/her.
- Bargaining: During this stage, the person says <u>she would do anything in exchange for not dying, he/she will make promises</u> (go to church, be a better person) to survive. These promises are usually made to God.
- Depression: The person accepts that bargaining will not work and will start a process of sadness, starting to recognize the reality of death.
- Acceptance: The person has come to terms with the fact that he/she is going to die and starts saying her goodbyes and reviews the life he/she has lived and makes arrangements referring to her/his death.
In this example, Janice is dying of cancer and she promises God that she will devote her life to church if he lets her live. We can see that s<u>he is bargaining and promising something in exchange for not dying</u>. Therefore, we can see that she is exhibiting the response of bargaining.
Answer:
The answer is C) overconfidence.
Explanation:
This bias takes place when people overestimate their possibilities of success. The real possibilities might be affected by the person's performance or a competitor's performance.
Studies show that people are more usually overconfident when presented in unfamiliar or difficult situations.
Answer:
Federalism is the system where sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent units.
Explanation:
Federalism is the system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units. It is based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and state governments, creating a federation. Dual federalism is a political arrangement in which power is divided between national and state governments in clearly defined terms, with state governments exercising those powers accorded to them without interference from the national government. Dual federalism is defined in contrast to cooperative federalism, in which national and state governments collaborate on policy. Dual and cooperative federalism are also known as ‘layer-cake’ and ‘marble cake’ federalism, respectively, due to the distinct layers of layer cake and the more muddled appearance of marble cake.
Federalism was the most influential political movement arising out of discontent with the Articles of Confederation, which focused on limiting the authority of the federal government. The movement was greatly strengthened by the reaction to Shays’ Rebellion of 1786-1787, which was an armed uprising of farmers in western Massachusetts. The rebellion was fueled by a poor economy that was created, in part, by the inability of the federal government to deal effectively with the debt from the American Revolution. Moreover, the federal government had proven incapable of raising an army to quell the rebellion, so Massachusetts was forced to raise its own.
The most forceful defense of the new Constitution was The Federalist Papers , a compilation of 85 anonymous essays published in New York City to convince the people of the state to vote for ratification. These articles, written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, examined the benefits of the new Constitution and analyzed the political theory and function behind the various articles of the Constitution. Those opposed to the new Constitution became known as the Anti-Federalists. They were generally local, rather than cosmopolitan, in perspective, oriented toward plantations and farms rather than commerce or finance, and wanted strong state governments with a weaker national government. The Anti-Federalists believed that the legislative branch had too much unchecked power, that the executive branch had too much power, and that there was no check on the chief executive. They also believed that a Bill of Rights should be coupled with the Constitution to prevent a dictator from exploiting citizens. The Federalists argued that it was impossible to list all the rights and that those not listed could be easily overlooked because they were not in the official bill of rights.
