The answer is all-or-nothing thinking. <span>This is regularly includes utilizing outright terms, for example, never or ever. This sort of defective reasoning can likewise incorporate a powerlessness to see the choices in a circumstance or answers for an issue. For individuals with tension or melancholy, this regularly implies just observing the drawback to any given circumstance. Individuals who succumb to win or bust reasoning trust that they're either effective or a total disappointment throughout everyday life.</span>
The correct answer for this question is this one: market and demand.
If the raw market cost for producing a particular good is lower for one producer than another the former producer has demand for producing the good. Hope this helps you answer your question.
Hinduism<span> prevented modern social mobility because it is designed to be religion of society and civilization, rather than of individual. </span>Hinduism <span>covered aspects of specific role to certain person out of free their free will.
</span>
<span>Hope my answer would be a great help for you.
If </span>you have more questions feel free to ask here at Brainly.
<span> </span>
Answer:
a) confederate
Explanation:
Milgram's experiment was carried out to test how far people's obedience goes. For this, several men of different ages and educational levels were brought together to obey a person who was considered an authority at that time. These men did not know that they were being tested in the experiment, but they thought that an "apprentice" who would take shocks to different levels of electricity was being tested.
The experiment consisted of men giving shocks with increasing levels of electricity in the apprentice, whenever the authority ordered. The intensity of the shocks would increase to the point that it is impossible not to kill the apprentice.
What the men did not know is that the apprentice was an actor and confederate of the experimenter and that he was pretending to receive shocks.
<u>Answer:
</u>
In this scenario, there is a high degree of social risk for Len.
<u>Explanation:
</u>
- The people who are in acquaintance with Len expect him to behave in a more dignified manner which would exhibit his social and economic status.
- The people that he works with believe that the social behavior that Len displays does not suit them because Len does not choose to behave like a dignified, rich individual despite being one.
