None of these conclusions is valid.
- The first one implies that people either think that their employer should cover part of the health insurance costs (as said in the original sentence), or they think that the employer should pay 100%. This is not correct because there are other possible opinions people can have, like thinking that the employer shouldn't pay for anything, for example.
- The second conclusion is invalid for the same reason: it implies that people can only either think that the employer should pay a large part, or that the employer shouldn't pay anything. It is not considering other options.
- The third conclusion does not work either because it is referring to what people think about <em>the amount </em>of the costs themselves, whereas the original topic was <em>how</em> they are paid for.
What are the answer choices, so I maybe able to help you better
Answer: Salvia (Salvia officinalis), también llamada salvia común o salvia de jardín, hierba aromática de la familia de la menta (Lamiaceae) cultivada por sus hojas picantes. La salvia es originaria de la región mediterránea y se usa fresca o seca como saborizante en muchos alimentos, particularmente en rellenos para aves y cerdo y en salchichas.
La salvia se encuentra en su estado natural salvaje de España.
Explanation:
Answer:
Option B
Explanation:
Evidences that have been analyzed in violation to the right of a defendant can't be used or presented in the court of law, just like the option states ,it has violated the rights and according to the law should not be used in presenting a case to the judge , so option B best explains what the exclusionary rules states.
Judicial review is the doctrine wherein the courts have the ability and obligation to review actions from the legislative and executive branch to determine whether they are constitutionally permissible.
