Final answer:
The statement is false; systematic evaluation of alternatives helps to minimize the reliance on implicit favorites and satisficing by encouraging a thorough analysis of each available option, which can prevent the use of heuristics that may lead to less optimal outcomes. The correct option is B.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that systematic evaluation of alternatives helps to increase the use of implicit favorites and satisficing in the decision process is false. In fact, the systematic evaluation of alternatives can help reduce the reliance on implicit favorites and satisficing, which is settling for an adequate solution rather than the optimal one.
When individuals have implicit favorites, they tend to choose options based on subconscious preferences rather than objective evaluation. Satisficing is when a decision maker accepts a solution that is good enough rather than the best possible choice.
A structured approach to decision-making encourages individuals to carefully analyze each option and helps prevent cognitive shortcuts, such as heuristics, that may lead to less optimal outcomes. In the context of voting decisions, for instance, majority rule can fail to produce a single preferred outcome when more than two choices are present.
This is known as a voting cycle, where the preferences of the majority might not be transitive (e.g., preferring policy A over B, B over C, but also C over A), leading to no clear winner. This is an example of why a systematic evaluation of options is critical in decision-making processes. The correct option is B.