Answer:
a , b and d
Explanation:
Groupthink is very valuable practice to promote good decisions through discussions from many points of view, brainstorm, discussions, even conflicts that result in better decisions.
Answer:
New York Times V. United States 1971
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Times.
The government used the reasoning of national security by preventing The New York Times from printing the documents.
The main result of the case was that the government couldn't say that there was a danger to the United States if they couldn't prove it.
Explanation:
I’ve honestly never heard of using food as currency. Maybe they shouldn’t because for one, it’s edible, it can expire, and people can eat it. Secondly, it’s easily reproducible, people can dry their own peas and become rich. Lastly, aren’t dried peas way too small? They can easily be lost,.
<u>Answer:
</u>
'People in collectivist societies tend to value more direct communication and active conflict resolution styles in order to maintain the group' is a TRUE assertion.
<u>Explanation:
</u>
- In collectivist societies, the benefits gained collectively gained by the society are shared amongst its members.
- If a certain sect of such a society is facing any kind of problem, their contribution towards the well-being of the society is disturbed. This in turn affects the entire society.
- Hence, to avoid any such problems and to ensure smooth functioning of the society, the members of the society tend to value direct communication and use methods of active conflict resolution for quick settlements of issues.
This could have a variety of impacts that this situation could have on the local market. Firstly, the introduction of a Chinese company would mean that there would more competition for the American solar power company which would then have to contend with the Chinese company for sales. They would then be in a race to bring the most affordable options to the consumers as well as new advances in the technology or greater service. This would mean that the consumers would benefit greatly from this situation as they would be getting better products and service for an affordable cost.
Also, both companies could have a working arrangement where they act as an oligopoly and dominate the solar power industry in that particular market. Although, more companies brings more competition, when there aren't a multiplicity of competitors, there is always the danger that the few businesses will band together and operate as one entity where they set specific prices, standards of service and technological advances introduced. They would only superficially be competing with each other. In this arrangement, the consumers would endure the same standard as having one entity dominating the market.
Another scenario would be where the American solar power company makes a superior product and as such would promote their products to the market as 'higher end' which would ensure they have a core and stable consumer base.
