Answer:
Directional selection
Explanation:
Directional selection is a mode of natural selection in which <u>a phenotype is favoured among other phenotypes </u>and therefore the population with the phenotype favoured increases over time to optimize their chances of survival.
This selection usually <u>requires a force in nature that causes a population to evolve towards one end of a trait spectrum.</u>
In this example, dark-colored moths are selected by predators because they stand out to predators against the light-colored foliage. Therefore, <u>this force in nature causes moths to change their phenotype and it shifts away from the dark-colored phenotype in order to increase their chances of survival so that predators do not predate them as easily because they won't stand out against the light-colored foliage. </u>
<u />
Thus this is an example of directional selection.
<em>The correct answer is b. quotas. This is the a limit of quantity of a product coming into a country that a goverment imposes in order to protect domestic producers. However, quota causes an important profit lost because the goverment does not earn a tax revenue, so it is less frequently used than the tariffs. </em>
Answer: C: The citizens of Athens stayed within an overcrowded walled city.
Explanation:
The Peloponnesian War had only been fought for a few years when farmers and other citizens who lived outside the city of Athens flocked to the inside for protection from the Spartans. The city had not prepared properly for this type of overcrowding. There was a shortage of food and clean water as a result. There was a lack of cleanliness. Athens was unable to get rid of all the waste that the mass of people was creating. This caused a plague.
Because the united states was going thriugh a war and spain took over alot of countries and gained there power
Answer:
The Kelo case proved to be a revelation for many New Londoners about their property rights. Small business owners like me have to be especially careful to avoid falling under the radar of government development projects.
Until now, I was under the impression that eminent domain gave the government the right to take private property as long as it was for public use. My assumption included that public use defined anything that the public could literally use. Apparently, the court went with a broader interpretation of public use under which “a taking is constitutional if it serves a public purpose” (Kelo v. City of New London).
This interpretation means public use includes anything that is deemed as fit for public purpose, even though I or most citizens may not be able to directly use it. This raises the concern of what all could fall under public use. I trust that the government won’t go on seizing private properties for its unrestrained use. However, the Kelo case still proves to be a matter of concern for me.
Although the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution provides a certain safeguard, the wider interpretation of public use makes it easier for businesses like mine to lose ownership of their property to the government.
Explanation:
