Answer:
An enterprise search software ( D )
Explanation:
To automate a manual process and also ensure that all information are stored following the required guidelines which includes easy sorting of data and also for the proper protection of data so that the data would not end up in unsolicited locations while trying to automate them . An enterprise search software would help the government achieve all this.
An enterprise search software is used to implement information search within an enterprise and also to ensure that the proper storage of confidential information on external storage devices like laptops that are not part of the enterprise
Answer:
a. certain types of cancers take twenty to thirty years to develop, and cell phone studies have only been monitoring this potential connection for ten years or less.
Explanation:
<u>This statement explains how we can't for the sure claim there are more benefits off the cell phone because the studies of the health effects have not been going on for long enough for us to prove that.</u>
<u>The damage is yet to be revealed, as stated in the claim, but it can be of great influence if proven that cell phones are connected to the development of cancer.</u>
<u>The B statement</u> does not add anything to the first claim and does not contradict it, as it just gives information about phone history usage and not the health benefits or risks.
<u>The C statement </u>is not counterclaiming as it adds up to the mentioned benefits - it explains how cell phones are helping life in general and do not refer to the statement about health risks.
<u>The D statement </u>mentions claims by agencies that are not health-based, and also supports the first statement, saying how there are no links to cancer development so far. It actually only goes with the original statement, and the A statement is counterclaim for it as well.
Answer:
Option A
Explanation:
The main very essence of Government is to represent the people, its citizens interest and in the same process, it could possible expand and glorify the state. I choose option A because every government will expand and want to glorify its state from its previous status based on its people interest.
All other options can happen under this option, it can create an avenue to protect the unalienable right of individual and all citizens, it can also Protect the rights and privileges not of his majesty the king but the citizens and lastly, based on the options, it promotes the general welfare of the community, states by taking steps toward social equality. all this options are part of the obligation of a government. but the one that comprise of all is option A is the government is to expand and glorify the state because it will be doing this in the best interest of the people and the only people that can glorify the work of the government is the people.
There is no objective answer to this question, as both sides have arguments that support their views.
If you believe that you are bound by Hobbes' argument, it is because of tacit consent. Tacit consent means that, even though you have not explicitly agreed to follow laws, you have indicated your agreement through other means, for example, by using the public services of the government or by remaining within the limits of your country. Also, you could argue that any rational person would prefer to follow the rules of the government than to live in the state of nature. Therefore, if you are rational, your consent is assumed. Finally, you could also argue that while you did not explicitly agreed, maybe your ancestors did, which still binds you as a member of the same society.
On the other hand, if you believe that you are not bound by Hobbes' argument, you could argue that any contract that is not freely agreed upon is not valid. As the government uses force to make you act according to the law, you cannot be considered to be freely consenting. Also, you can argue that agreeing to follow some rules does not imply following <em>all</em> of the laws of the country. Finally, a common argument against Hobbes is the lack of empirical data. As we do not know if the state of nature is actually bad, or if the contract ever happened, the government cannot gain its legitimacy in that way.
