Miranda tosses a fair coin consecutively five times and gets heads each time. When her son Shane asks her about the probability of getting tails on the next (sixth) toss, Miranda says the following: "This is a fair coin, so I should toss heads approximately 50 percent of the time. Because I have tossed heads 100 percent of the time for my first five tossed, then the probability of me tossing tails on the sixth toss must be greater than 50 percent." Miranda’s statement is an example of the fallacy.

Gambler's fallacy

Explanations: Gambler's fallacy can be simply defined as a phenomenon where the outcome of an event is viewed as less or more likely due to the outcome of previous events even though each event is independent.

For example, If a family should give birth to (5) five boys, gambler's fallacy will argue that the chance or probability of the family giving birth to girl next higher because the previous ones were boys, but in reality the chances are thesame because both gender has equally chance of being conceived.

So Miranda’s statement is a good example of gambler's fallacy because she argue that the probability that she will toss a tail in her sixth toss is higher than 50% and in reality, the probability of tossing a head or a tail are both thesame i.e 50%.

it all depends on how long the hours are. i think they wouldn't approve of it. in my opinion.

protectionism fosters competition and keeps price regulated is not an argument in favor of protectionism.