One effective strategy used by political campaigns is to communicate information to the public about the candidate or issue.
Candidates are expected to bring solutions to a certain comunity problems so, when they postulate, they have to declare what their propositions to solve the comunity issues are, as well as their plans to take them to reality. In addition, all information provided on the candidate exalts his or her qualities in order to persuade voters to pick them, regarding they are different from the ones that preceded them and, thus, will make an actual change in the comunity.
The real reason for maintaining armies is the same reason why some men buy expensive sports cars... overcompensating.
Seriously, think of armies as insurance. Even if it's small, amateurish, and under-funded, it's likely to give potential bullies a little pause. (Of course, a big country like Iraq can sweep up a little country like Kuwait in no time flat, as we all know).
Part of the answer is social/ economic/ political inertia. The military is part of the playground for the elite and privileged. (I use the word playground as in "fork over your lunch money, weakling.") Who wants to get rid of their army just to balance the budget? I sure haven´t seen "fire soldier-boys" on any IMF or World Bank wish lists
A lot of countries, fragile democracies, say, find armies to be an effective tool to use on internal "problems." In a pinch, a loyal military can keep your nation away from chaos. On the other hand, they work equally well to keep dictators in power.
<span>Many countries do get a lot more mileage out of their armies than Iceland or Costa Rica could possibly get. Obviously, a lot of African countries find them pretty handy.
</span>
Also, keep this quote in mind
<span>"It takes two countries to maintain peace and only one to make war"</span>
A reasonable view of the choice of using your friend as expert testimony is <u>D. The friend’s </u><u>insights</u> are valuable as peer testimony.
<h3>What is peer testimony?</h3>
Peer testimony is a testimony given by a person without the required specialist expertise in a particular matter.
Peer testimony serves as an assertion made by someone who has experience or knowledge of a particular matter. For example, your friend who has a brother with childhood Type I diabetes.
Thus, a reasonable view of the choice of using your friend as expert testimony is <u>Option D</u>.
Learn more about peer testimony at brainly.com/question/4214423
Answer:
Advantages
1. These data could improve response by helping first responders locate victims who need urgent help.
2. They are useful because updates are gotten from people who have first hand information.
Disadvantages
1. The information may not be totally accurate.
2. Such data tend to be biased
Explanation:
Crowdsourced social media data is simply the data gotten from social media based on reports made by citizens about locations and conditions of events or disasters in their community.
There are certain advantages and disadvantages when using such data in disaster response which are given above.
