Analyze how federal budget decisions require tradeoffs and choices. how would you attempt to balance the federal budget? for example, would the defense budget be reduced to pay for an increase in transportation infrastructure? if so, why?

Hi! Well, this question is about your personal opinion on the subject, but I will give you mine in case it helps.

Decisions on federal budgets clearly require tradeoffs and very difficult choices. I'd say that is all about trying to find a balance.

Explanation:

Being in charge of these kinds of decisions is a very serious deal. As I said before, I think that the key is to try to find a balance. This doesn't mean that I would adjudicate the same amount of money to every section, it means that I would carefully analyze every situation, decide which ones are essential and would adjudicate more money to those. It will always depend on the necessities of the society and the money I have to afford them. If I had a lot of money, the decision making process wouldn't be so difficult, the problem is if I lack the money. In that case, I would study which are urgent matters and would send more money to those.

As for the specific question on the defense budget and the transportation, I would analyze if defense is actually functioning well, or if it is not. If it is not working, I would put it on the top list of priorities and would send more money to this matter in order to make it work. Defense is one of the key subjects for the rest of subjects to function, so it would be my priority, but, as I said before, this is a very personal opinion and you can disagree and have a different one. Just think about it carefully and see what do you feel about it.

Good luck!

elizabeth loftus conducted a study to observe the reliability of eyewitnesses during the 1970s. their baseline was to define how accurate are the recollections of eyewitnesses.

her studies do not support the use of eyewitness. loftus mentions in her work that we are not required to recall some experiences, meaning that rarely an individual eyewitness testimony is trustworthy. a good example is presented in her work, where all individuals watched a video and were than asked "about how fast were the cars going when they hit/smash? ". the testimonies changed based on the word she used to make the question (hit or smash), proving the fragility.

is there a year set? the question is incomplete