Nope, it’s honestly completely normal, I really haven’t thought about what I want to do as a career or what college I want to go to. Everybody goes at their own pace and that’s perfectly okay. :)
The answer to the
question stated above is letter <span>b.the Pentagon Papers
<span>The Pentagon Papers</span> which is officially
titled as <span>United States –
Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense</span>, is a U.S. Department of Defense history of the United States' political-military
involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967.
The
papers revealed that the U.S. had secretly enlarged the scale of the Vietnam
War with the bombings of nearby Cambodia and Laos, coastal raids on North Vietnam,
and Marine Corps attacks,
none of which were reported in the mainstream media.
</span>
After thorough research, that question has the same one with the following choices.
(A) They thought senators could work from their states.
(B) They decided that one senator was enough.
(C) They could not find two deserving senators.
(D) They could not decide who to elect.
So the correct answer is (A) They thought senators could work from their states.
Read more on Brainly.com - brainly.com/question/1070622#readmore
Answer:
This case involves a federal death sentence imposed on defendant-appellant Fields for conviction of a federal capital offense. Fields was sentenced to death largely on the basis of the opinion of a psychiatrist who stated that he could confidently predict Fields would be dangerous in the future. The psychiatrist testified that he did not know of any "standard psychiatric or medical procedures used in arriving at a determination or predicting future dangerousness" and that he was unaware of specific empirical data or studies. He issued his opinion without engaging in any testing or any other objective measures or use of an actuarial method. His basis for this opinion was discussions with the prosecutors and review of some records regarding the defendant. The defense attorney objected to the testimony as unreliable under the standards for expert testimony established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical (i.e., that proffered evidence must be grounded in scientific reasoning or methodology). The district court overruled the objections and allowed the expert testimony to go to the jury.
Explanation:
