There is no list? reply to this if you have it because i will help you
The correct answer is - A. Romans adopted Greek gods but gave them new names.
The Romans and the Greeks interacted for a long time. The Greeks developed as a civilization earlier than them, so it was natural for the Romans to adopt some traits of a civilization that was more advanced and they were familiar with. They did this with the gods. The Romans adopted the Greek gods, and even though they kept their characteristics, they decided to change their names, so there was a situation where both civilization had the total same gods, but they had different names for them. One of the many examples is the Greek goddess Aphrodite, which the Romans named as Venus.
Answer: The contribution made by the Soviets was vital. They provided diplomatic support, strategic and grand tactical planning, including the planning of the invasion of South Korea, and essential logistical support. They supplied and trained the air forces of China and North Korea
You did not include quotation options, but here is the section from Federalist Papers, #84, which addresses the inclusion of a Bill of Rights:
<em>There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS. The several bills of rights in Great Britain form its Constitution, and conversely the constitution of each State is its bill of rights. And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the Union. Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions. Is another object of a bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns? This we have seen has also been attended to, in a variety of cases, in the same plan. Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the work of the convention. It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this appear; but it can with no propriety be contended that there is no such thing. It certainly must be immaterial what mode is observed as to the order of declaring the rights of the citizens, if they are to be found in any part of the instrument which establishes the government. And hence it must be apparent, that much of what has been said on this subject rests merely on verbal and nominal distinctions, entirely foreign from the substance of the thing.</em>
