B is definitely correct as I recently did a lesson on it but I am not sure about the others, sorry.
During times of war, some businesses may wither, others may flourish. The market for weapons, perhaps, would have a booming sales performance. This would attract people to come and work for them instead because they would need labor force. However, after the war has died down, people will stop buying these goods. It's time for them to rebuild their businesses. They would have to cut off expenditures to allocate for rebuilding. The easiest pool of expenditures for company owners are the wages. So, as a result, they would lay off workers. In the worst case scenario, businesses would have no way of paying the workers because they would go bankrupt.
Therefore, the answer is: <span>Too many businesses went bankrupt following the war..</span>
It's B most camps where in Arkansas and Mississippi <span />
The way to achieve this impartiality – to free judges to decide cases based on what the law actually requires, and on nothing else – is to ensure that the judiciary is independent, or, put differently, not subject to reprisals for decisions on the bench.
But judicial independence is not an absolute or singular value defining our courts. The principle of judicial restraint is equally important – and it is inextricably linked to judicial independence. At one level, the tension between the two seems inescapable. But there is an important sense in which an independent judiciary and judicial restraint are flip sides of the same coin. Both aim to minimize the influence of extraneous factors on judicial decision-making. A judge must not decide a case with an eye toward public approbation, because whether a particular result is popular is irrelevant to whether it is legally sound. In the same way, a judge must not consult
The answer is B. Durham boats
