Which of the following illustrates the concept of a negative externality? a. A college professor plays a vigorous game of racquet ball with the racquet he recently purchased. b. A flood wipes out a farmer's corn crop. c. A college student plays loud music on his new stereo system at 2:00 a. m. d. A janitor eats a hamburger during his lunch break.

c. A college student plays loud music on his new stereo system at 2:00 a.m

Explanation:

Negative externality can be said to occur when the cost of consumption of a good consumed by an individual is imposed also on a third party. In order words, consumption of a good results also in a negative effect on a third party.

For example, out of the options given in the question above, the option that best illustrates the concept of negative externality is option C, “A college student plays loud music on his new stereo system at 2:00am”.  

The consumption of the new stereo system will produce an unpleasant effect and irritation to other neighbors as the college student plays loud music at such odd time of the day. This noise pollution that the new stereo system causes is the negative effect other people around him suffers as the third party.

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )

probably 3 since archeologists and historians don’t understand there writing.