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.
I think it would be confusion
Answer:
(D) corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting
Explanation:
In the American court apparatus, a company may be framed for a crime that the employee committed while working and as a representative of the company. However, if the employee commits a crime during his or her personal routine, which has nothing to do with the company's activities, the company will not be framed in the criminal act. For example, if during work hours a company employee runs over a person, the company may also be held responsible. If an employee runs over a person while off duty, in a particular routine, such as a trip to the mall, only the employee will be penalized.
Conservation allows scarce resources to bounce back from udder demise. Without conservation, many plants and animals would go extinct.
C. Ashamed is the correct answer
