Which of the following statement(s) is/are example(s) of the type of critical thinking needed for citizens in a democracy:

The correct answers are A) Different people have different views, but even experts can be wrong which is why we need to find many different sources of information before making a political decision. D) The experts are generally correct, but we should look for multiple different sources of information before concluding.

The other options of the question were B) Many people have ulterior motives so their recommendations need to be taken with skepticism. Experts are sometimes wrong and the people we trust might be biased. Therefore, we need to utilize many different sources of information before making political decisions. And C) If an individual in a position of authority (e.g., police officer; teacher; member of the clergy) says something, it is my duty to obey and to believe what they say.

In a democracy, people need to use critical thinking to understand the many different political ideas and proposals from candidates and political parties during a campaign. Citizens deserve to know the truth, and if politicians are not saying the truth, people can think by themselves, consider the option of experts, analysts, media hosts, and journalists, but in the end, it is the citizens who have the last word.

So yes, the statements that are examples of the type of critical thinking needed for citizens in a democracy are the following: Different people have different views, but even experts can be wrong which is why we need to find many different sources of information before making a political decision. And, the experts are generally correct, but we should look for multiple different sources of information before concluding.

b) a state law could be declared illegal if it contradicted the constitution.

explanation:

the conflict of this case originated when james w. mcculloch, a cashier of the baltimore branch of the second bank of the united states that the congress had chartered in 1816, refused to pay a tax imposed by the maryland state.

in the case, the state of maryland appealed that the establishment of a second bank was unconstitutional since the constitution didn't say anything about granting that power to congress. however, the case determined that even if such right wasn't specifically stated in the constitution, it was part of the "implied powers" of the government enunciated in article i, section 8.

the case also eliminated maryland's legislation to impose taxes to a national bank, asserting that even though the states retained the power of taxation, the constitution's laws are supreme and can not be controlled by the states, therefore, if a state law contradicts the constitution, it should be declared illegal.

explanation:

you didn't give any answers to choose from so i can't with this but, i do know something that the mexican government would be worried about and that is the wall that donald trump is currently trying to get up.