1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Delicious77 [7]
1 year ago
10

What are the four categories of resources? Give an example of a

Advanced Placement (AP)
1 answer:
Natalka [10]1 year ago
5 0

Answer:

In economics, factors of production are the resources people use to produce goods and services; they are the building blocks of the economy. Economists divide the factors of production into four categories: land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship.

Explanation:

The four categories are:

1) Land - e.g.water.

2 ) Capital - e.g. machinery.

3) Labor - e.g. the effort of workers.

4) Entrepreneurship - e.g. the risk taking involved in organizing resources for production.

thank u mark me as a brainlist...

You might be interested in
Dont answer this question
romanna [79]

Answer:

hi

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Which of the following is likely to occur in the future?
DaniilM [7]

The statement that is likely to occur in the future is new ethnicities will be formed, and old ethnicities will merge into one. The correct option is b.

<h3>What is ethnicity?</h3>

Ethnicity refers to a group's cultural identity, which is generally based on shared ancestry, language, and cultural traditions, whereas race refers to a taxonomic grouping based on physical similarities among groups.

The idea of race refers to the division of humans into groups based on diverse sets of physical features, as well as the process of assigning social significance to those categories.

Ethnicity describes a people's culture in a certain geographic area, encompassing their language, background, religion, and customs.

Therefore, the correct option is b, New ethnicities will be formed, and old ethnicities will merge into one.

To learn more about ethnicity, refer to the link:

brainly.com/question/12084761

#SPJ1

4 0
1 year ago
Please I need help with my LEQ. Will mark it as the brainiest!
Maksim231197 [3]

Answer:

1775–1830

U.S. Indian policy during the American Revolution was disorganized and largely unsuccessful. At the outbreak of the war, the Continental Congress hastily recruited Indian agents. Charged with securing alliances with Native peoples, these agents failed more often than they succeeded. They faced at least three difficulties. First, they had less experience with Native Americans than did the long-standing Indian agents of the British Empire. Second, although U.S. agents assured Indians that the rebellious colonies would continue to carry on the trade in deerskins and beaver pelts, the disruptions of the war made regular commerce almost impossible. Britain, by contrast, had the commercial power to deliver trade goods on a more regular basis. And third, many Indians associated the rebellious colonies with aggressive white colonists who lived along the frontier. Britain was willing to sacrifice these colonists in the interests of the broader empire (as it had done in the Proclamation of 1763), but for the colonies, visions of empire rested solely on neighboring Indian lands. Unable to secure broad alliances with Indian peoples, U.S. Indian policy during the Revolution remained haphazard, formed by local officials in response to local affairs.

6 0
3 years ago
What is dispersal and elevation ?​
Kobotan [32]
Little is known about how mutualistic interactions affect the distribution of species richness on broad geographic scales. Because mutualism positively affects the fitness of all species involved in the interaction, one hypothesis is that the richness of species involved should be positively correlated across their range, especially for obligate relationships. Alternatively, if mutualisms involve multiple mutualistic partners, the distribution of mutualists should not necessarily be related, and patterns in species distributions might be more strongly correlated with environmental factors. In this study, we compared the distributions of plants and vertebrate animals involved in seed‐dispersal mutualisms across the United States and Canada. We compiled geographic distributions of plants dispersed by frugivores and scatter‐hoarding animals, and compared their distribution of richness to the distribution in disperser richness. We found that the distribution of animal dispersers shows a negative relationship to the distribution of the plants that they disperse, and this is true whether the plants dispersed by frugivores or scatter‐hoarders are considered separately or combined. In fact, the mismatch in species richness between plants and the animals that disperse their seeds is dramatic, with plants species richness greatest in the in the eastern United States and the animal species richness greatest in the southwest United States. Environmental factors were corelated with the difference in the distribution of plants and their animal mutualists and likely are more important in the distribution of both plants and animals. This study is the first to describe the broad‐scale distribution of seed‐dispersing vertebrates and compare the distributions to the plants they disperse. With these data, we can now identify locations that warrant further study to understand the factors that influence the distribution of the plants and animals involved in these mutualisms.

Introduction
A central problem in ecology is to understand the patterns and processes shaping the distribution of species. There is a preponderance of studies of species richness at broad geographic scales (Hawkins et al. 2003, Rahbek et al. 2007, Stein et al. 2014, Rabosky and Hurlbert 2015) that has facilitated our understanding of why species are found where they are, a central tenet within the domain of ecology (Scheiner and Willig 2008). Most commonly, these studies find species distributions to be correlated with resource availability and use environmental variables (e.g. temperature and productivity; Rabosky and Hurlbert 2015) to explain putative determinants of the distributions. Environmental variables are only one determinant of species’ distributions. Another, species interaction, is a key and understudied determinant of species’ distributions (Cazelles et al. 2016). In fact, in some cases species interactions may be more important for determining distribution than environmental variables (Fleming 2005).

When species interact, we expect their geographic distributions to be correlated – either positively or negatively – depending on the effect (or sign of the interaction) of one species on the other (Case et al. 2005). For pairwise interactions, where one species benefits from another species, a positive relationship is expected between the distribution and abundance due to the increase in the average fitness of the benefitting species where they overlap (Svenning et al. 2014). Furthermore, most species interactions are not simply pairwise, but diffuse, consisting of multiple interacting species, here referred to as guilds (with guilds referring to species that use the same resource). It therefore follows that where one guild benefits from another guild, a positive relationship is expected between the distribution and richness of the guids. This should be true in the case of mutualisms, where both sides of the interaction share an increase in average fitness from being together (Bronstein 2015), and there is some evidence for correlated geographic distributions of mutualists in the New World (Fleming 2005). One example of a mutualism where both sides of the interaction have a fitness advantage in each other's presence is animal‐mediated seed dispersal. Because both interacting species and guilds in seed dispersal mutualism benefit from the relationship we would predict that the richness of animal‐dispersed plants ought to be correlated with the richness of their animal dispersers and vice versa. To our knowledge, this prediction has never been tested on a large geographic scale.
3 0
3 years ago
Two reasons why the people subordinate to the aztecs were ready to rebel when the europeans arrived
Lelu [443]
The Natives were ready to rebel against the Aztecs because of the abuses they experienced in its political system.  
<span>
</span><span>When the Europeans arrived to conquer Aztecs, the Natives did not attack but helped them. They have decided </span><span>to overthrow their government. </span>
<span>
</span>

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Mary is an authorized user on her parents' credit card. What may happen if Mary doesn't use the card in a responsible way?
    11·1 answer
  • A ______________ committee in either chamber is one that specializes in certain policy areas and exists from one congressional s
    8·1 answer
  • Select the letter of the correct answer. Based on information in the Article, in what way do introverts and extroverts contrast?
    5·1 answer
  • What did the disciples do wrong according to the Pharisees
    11·1 answer
  • Describe Yahoo's homepage as a source of information
    6·1 answer
  • Dgshgsdfhhhhhhhhhhhh
    7·1 answer
  • Who is most likely to join an interest group? *
    7·1 answer
  • research question plz answer honestly: How old are you (if you feel uncomfortable saying age u can replace with grade) and are y
    14·2 answers
  • There are two words or phrases in this problem that tell you what operations will be in the algebraic expression. Choose the cor
    13·1 answer
  • Greenhouse effect is caused by:
    9·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!