Answer: A pessimistic explanatory style
Explanation:
A pessimistic explanatory style refers the situation where people generally blame themselves for negative things happening to them.
Felony,religious veiws, prejudce veiws,Apathy,Don't like the canidates,can't get to the pols,lines are too long,they think their vote won't count,too busy, and the registration requirements
Answer:
It depends on your way of thinking. The Framers created a representative democracy because they were fearful of direct democracy. They were afraid that people would take their power away. In some cases, it would be better to have a representative democracy than a direct democracy and vice versa. Never the less, the Framers were afraid of what would happen if they did have a direct democracy.
Answer:
Fast glycolytic fibres
1. Large diameter and large volumes of glycogen: The large diameter enables the fibres to produce contractile force.
2. Uses anaerobic glycosis to get ATP source: This works in low supply of oxygen which is where it derive ATP from during glycosis.
3. Break down ATP fast and contract fast as well: This occurs at the time when they fatigue quickly.
Slow oxidative fibres:
1. They possess a very large volume of mitochondria
2. They resist fatigue: This type of fibre type has the highest resistance to fatigue. They can function for long periods without being fatigued.
3. These are made up of muscles with long contraction duration.
Explanation:
These are examples of muscle fibres. The third one is known as the fast oxidative.
The slow oxidative and fast oxidative uses aerobic respiration while fast glycolytic uses anaerobic respiration.
not sure if this helps but I hope it does
sorry its so long
To date erosion scientists have failed to address — or have addressed inadequately — some of the ‘big questions’ of our discipline. For example, where is erosion occurring? Why is it happening, and who is to blame? How serious is it? Who does it affect? What should be the response? Can we prevent it? What are the costs of erosion? Our inability or reluctance to answer such questions damages our credibility and is based on weaknesses in commonly-used approaches and the spatial and temporal scales at which much research is carried out. We have difficulty in the recognition, description and quantification of erosion, and limited information on the magnitude and frequency of events that cause erosion. In particular there has been a neglect of extreme events which are known to contribute substantially to total erosion. The inadequacy and frequent misuse of existing data leaves us open to the charge of exaggeration of the erosion problem (a la Lomborg).
Models need to be developed for many purposes and at many scales. Existing models have proved to be of limited value, in the real as opposed to the academic world, both because of problems with the reliability of their results, and difficulties (with associated costs) of acquiring suitable data. However, there are some positive signs: models are now being developed for purposes including addressing questions of off-site impacts and land-use policy. Cheap, reliable and technically simple methods of erosion assessment at the field scale are needed. At the global scale, an up-date of GLASOD based on a scientific approach is urgent so that we are at least able to identify erosion ‘hotspots’.
In terms of explanation of erosion, the greatest need is for a full recognition of the importance of socio-economic drivers. The accession of new countries to the EU with different economic and land-use histories emphasises this need. Too often we have left people, especially the farmers, out of the picture. Our approach could be characterised as ‘data-rich and people-poor’.
