Final answer:
The statement about majority rule being unable to produce a single preferred outcome in a scenario with more than two choices is true. The concept of quid pro quo does pertain to exchanges in contract law, but parallel contracts is not a recognized term. Sole executive agreements are less durable than treaties, and the two types of interference in physics are constructive and destructive.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that "majority rule can fail to produce a single preferred outcome when there are more than two choices" is true. This is because when multiple options are available, the majority vote may be split among several choices, preventing any single option from receiving a majority. This situation is known as a plurality where the option with the most votes wins, even if it does not constitute a majority.
The statement "Two types of two-party contracts are quid pro quo and parallel contracts" is a bit misguiding. While quid pro quo does refer to a situation where something is given in exchange for something else, it is not specifically a type of two-party contract. Parallel contracts are not a recognized term in contract law. The more accurate term for a two-party agreement would be a bilateral contract.
As for the statement regarding executive agreements and treaties, it is false. A sole executive agreement is generally less durable than a treaty because it rests on the authority of the current president and can be revoked by a successor, whereas treaties, once ratified by the Senate, become part of the supreme Law of the Land according to the U.S. Constitution.
Lastly, the types of interference in physics are indeed constructive and destructive interferences, which makes that statement true.