I am not certian on the context of this question. This feels like the sort of question that needs the assistance of vocab notes you may have been provided to accurately answer.
That said, some possible answers are...
- Broad Generalization
- Biased Observation
- Explicit Prejudice
Answer:
The correct answer is option D: Urged less government spending in general.
Explanation:
The US president Franklin Roosevelt set up a National Resource Planning board in 1934. This board was also known by the name of National Resource Board. This board was consigned as a consulting organisation for natural resources information. The board distributed analysis and land-use planning records in the years between 1934 to 1943. This board approved the development of the welfare state.
Answer:
The leaders are making a case that Japan has the right customers for their brand
Explanation:
Before launching a business brand in a different location especially overseas it is appropriate to conduct market survey on how successful that business venture will strive in its new location. also all market factors like taxation, business approval and shipping tariffs should as well be considered.
The leaders are making a case that Japan has the right customer base for their brand because they have conducted their market research and discovered that Japan has western brand awareness hence an Ice cream brand coming in from America like cold stone creamery will strive in Japan.
Answer:
No impact.
Explanation:
In some countries, states do not have the autonomy to formulate their own laws. The US is not one of those. In the state territory, although there are laws that apply throughout the country, each state can formulate its own laws and these must be followed within the limits of the state and punishable by those who disobey. The law of each state must be judged in its home state and cannot be imposed on another state that does not accept that law as the rule to be followed. Thus, in relation to the above question, we can conclude that if state law in the neighboring state requires that interrogation be recorded on video, that law has no impact on state interrogation that does not require such recording.
