Answer:
The inference that is best supported by the passage is: A. Prior to the "Click it or Ticket" law, motorist could not be stopped simply for not waring a seatbelt."
Explanation:
In the passage is very clear that in the new law motorist can be now pulled over and ticketed for not wearing seatbelts (later in the passage it implies that's the reason why lawyers and citizens' gorups are protesting), which implies that before the state legislature passed the law this was not a reason to be pulled over even though this is not stated in the passage, the entire text circles around the novelty of pulling over motorist for not wearing seatbelt, therefore the best option is A especially because that is the main idea of the text.
Yes that would be possible. You can look at this problem from a purely non-partisan viewpoint. You can try to understand why some people would think differently and you can learn their viewpoints and know what they are even though you don't agree with them. You can also present those viewpoints without any emotional involvement.
There was a conflict of religion versus science at the
Scopes Trial because the teaching of evolution where man was said to come from
animals was against the Biblical origin of man. At the time, it was not allowed
to teach that theory. This began a
debate of whether or not to teach evolution in high school and it challenged the Christian origins of
man.
<span>It is generally difficult to diagnose toxicity in animals because the tests used to make the diagnoses include blood, tissue sample, and histopathology as well as x-rays but these only test for specific things that have to be listed by the veterinarian. If the vet has no clue what toxin to search for in these tests, it is hard to identify what the toxin was and how to treat it.</span>
Yea kinda because if you didn't know how to read you wouldn't be able to go anywhere really since you wouldn't be able to read directions and stuff
