Answer: F. Arch
Reasoning: look up an arch fingerprint and it should show something very similar.
Answer:
Check below for the answers and explanations
Explanation:
1) Standing is the process of examining the right of a plaintiff to take a lawsuit to the court of law.
Standing is important to ensure that the case brought to court is actually a dispute and not a contempt from an aggrieved party. It also ensures that the innocent is not unlawfully punished.
2) Sierra Club could have had a standing to file the lawsuit if it had an evidence or a likelihood of being injured or harmed
3) The Sierra club case led to the birth of a dissent that environmental objects should be regarded as persons in ecological matters.
4)The case did not have standing because it was filed by an organization and this conflicts with the Animal Welfare Act which stated that individuals and organizations do not have standing to file a lawsuit in a court.
5) Mr Jurnove, a worker of the Animal Legal Defence Fund was able to provide a substantial claim of the injuries he suffered when he saw the ill treatment the animals were subjected to by USDA.
Though other plaintiffs do not have standing, as far as one of them does, it will not be considered whether or not the others have standing. Therefore, the plaintiff had standing.
6) None of the plaintiffs that were acting on behalf of the dolphin met the requirement of "Injury in fact", a necessary requirement to have standing. None of them could give evidences of the injuries suffered as a result of the act by The New England Aquarium.
I think it’s the first one
I think the answer would be E none of the above because all of them are types of dangers law enforcement may have to encounter
