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
Vanyuwa [196]
3 years ago
8

How might the world be different (better or worse) if Anthony Ashley Cooper hadn't lived?

History
2 answers:
erastovalidia [21]3 years ago
8 0
I believe that the world would be worse if Anthony Ashley Cooper hadn’t lived. He made working conditions in the mine a lot safer for women and children. Without AAC, a lot more lives would be lost due to unsafe conditions.
ycow [4]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:The world might be worse since he was the 1st earl of Shaftesbury, English politician, a member of the Council of State.He was 18 when he was chosen.For example,when women and childrens were sented to work in the mines.We all know mines can be dangerous and a unchecked one can collapse any moment.He made the mine's condition better meaning that people were able to work in it safely.His lifetime was at the reign of King Charles II.If he didn't live,i am pretty sure a lot of children back then would have died.Also his children wouldn't be alive to make a impact.

Explanation:

You might be interested in
HELP
Igoryamba
The answer is A: Maryland and Pennsylvania.
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did the french and english fight
alexgriva [62]
The war began because of two main reasons: England wanted control of the English-owned, French-controlled region of Aquitaine, and the English royal family was also after the French crown. The sheer duration of this conflict means that there were many developments and lots of battles, too – 56 battles to be precise!
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Please helpp ill give brainly and heart thank you!!!
Lina20 [59]

Answer:

A  California

explanation

7 0
3 years ago
Which two principles have directed the foreign policy of the United States since world war 2
prohojiy [21]
The principles of collective security and deterrence have directed the U.S's foreign policy since World War II. Collective security is plan for preserving peace through a union of sovereign states, whose members pledge themselves to defend each other against attack. Deterrence<span> is a strategy aimed at deterring an adversary from taking an action through instilling fear of the ramifications of such action.</span>
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
The Nuremberg trials after World War II were largely a symbolic exercise because a small number of Nazis were charged. a small n
Nadya [2.5K]

Answer:

where the f is the answer

Explanation:

im going insane

6 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Which of the following was true of women in the workplace in the late 1800s?
    5·2 answers
  • This was the policy of the British government toward the colonies prior to the French and Indian War that sowed the seeds of sel
    8·1 answer
  • How did monotheism differ from other early beliefs
    8·2 answers
  • In May 1856, a pro-slavery mob attacked the town of
    15·2 answers
  • Which word below would best explain the relationship between England &amp; Spain in the 16th century? *
    6·1 answer
  • Read what Franklin D. Roosevelt said when he accepted the Democratic Party’s nomination for president in 1932. "I pledge you, I
    15·1 answer
  • Who are people that leave their country of birth to live in another country
    15·2 answers
  • Who was Joseph Stalin's employer?
    11·1 answer
  • What did King Charles II of England give to the eight Lord Proprietors for helping him reclaim the throne?
    6·1 answer
  • What was used to prevent african american men from voting in the late 1800s?tenant contractssubsistence farmspoll taxesminstrel
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!