Veto is when the government decides not to pass a law.
Answer:
Check Explanation.
Explanation:
So, the question is about a research or an experiment on whether the intake of cola causes a lot of or severe headaches. And I will be using myself as the control experiment. Please note that I just did not want to use myself as the control experiment but because the question ask us to. That is the use of "single case design" which means that the person performing the experiment must use himself or herself as the control experiment instead of using another person.
Step one => I will make sure to know how often or how many times I do do get headaches.
Step two => I will then stop taking the cola, but after sometimes I will continue taking the cola back.
Using the single case design, I can test for my Hypothesis using the following steps;
For step two above, if during the period that I stopped taking cola, I did not have any headache and immediately I start taking the cola I started developing headaches, then
it is true that the artificial sweetener in the cola is responsible for the headaches.
To the second part of the question; I expect to find that that the artificial sweetener in the cola is responsible for the headaches.
My conclusion will be that the artificial sweetener in the cola is responsible for the headaches.
Los de la tercera generacion no estan conectados con sus raices como los de la primera generacion
Answer:
<h3>I think this might help you</h3><h3>
Explanation:</h3><h3 />
<h3>With the flu season swiftly approaching and the H1N1 already affecting large numbers across the world, New Hampshire faces the possibility of a flu epidemic. In such an instance, what action would the state or federal government take? The possibility of a massive quarantine gets thrown around every time a flu epidemic exists, but is such an action an infringement of the rights of individuals living in a free nation? Or is the common good of preventing the spread of infection more important?
</h3><h3>
</h3><h3>Even the current health care debate reflects the tension between individual rights and the common good. Over the past months New Hampshire town halls have been crowded with individuals taking a side in the individual rights/common good debate. Some have expressed the view that health care initiatives are in the interest of a healthier state and nation. Others claim that compulsory health insurance impedes individuals’ right to the best health care money can buy. Can the individual rights vs. common good debate help us understand some of the ideological tension behind the current health care discussion?
</h3><h3>
</h3><h3>As many of these examples show, this month’s question is largely political, but it can also flow into other areas of thought. There’s the philosophical and moral question of the Donner Party; if you and five others were stranded and starving, and your only hope of getting out alive is to eat the first member who passed away, would you do it to save the rest of the group? There is the question that comes up around the disabled. Do you build special infrastructure to accommodate the few who are disabled even if that meant the cost to do this would jack up prices. Then there is the commercial/environmental side. What is more important, buying a cheaper car that fits your personal budget and your personal tastes or a more expensive and efficient auto that would help save the environment? What do you think?
</h3>
Look at ducksters .com they have all ss answers
