Answer:
a letter written by a person who is describing a current event
Explanation:
A primary source is a document from the time period of the event.
While most of these could be considered one, you have to do a process of elimination.
A scholarly article about an old event isn't a primary source, so it's not that.
An interview with a reporter who wrote about a current event is not a primary source because it is not the original document from the reporter.
A student's report about an event that occurred during her lifetime is a primary source, but it is not the best example.
Answer:
- Freedom from the influence of the Great Britain
They no longer had to put up with the pressure of having to elect officials that is wanted by the Great Britain. They can elect someone who can genuinely care for the country's development.
- Ability to forms their own laws that are suitable to their own culture
some of the laws that made during the colonization designed to conformed to western principles / philosophy. Making own their constitution means that India no longer have to do this.
- Ability to form an alliance outside of Great Britain's social circle.
Such as Russia and China for example. They won't be able to form an alliance with them if they are still under the British influence.
- Create the economy that benefit Indian people
Under British's rule, the trades laws that passed will most likely benefit the Great Britain rather than the Indian people. They will decide which products gets the subsidy and how much the products they can export. But this commodities might not be popular In Indian market.
Answer:
b. Semiotics
Explanation:
Semiotics -
It refers to the study of sign , which can be any activity or conduct related to sign , is referred to as semiotics .
Sign is the indication for the any word , phrase or activity , that is studies by the people who studies semiotics .
The study of sign requires senses like , olfactory , visual , auditory etc.
Hence , from the given scenario of the question ,
The correct answer is -
b. Semiotics .
Marks explains that we have been made to believe that conflict is bad and compromise is good. He describes this as a vision that is too simplistic to be upheld by the nations of the world. Marks says it will be difficult to determine whether conflict is good or bad if we do not understand the people involved in the conflict, the cause and the strategy involved in the conflict.
He said compromise, contrary to general belief, can be harmful if it does not protect the vulnerable and the dis-empowered.
Marks gave an example of a United Nations agency that collaborated with the federal and local governments, television company, and even a multinational soda company in order to address the problem of poor sanitation in schools in India. This arrangement helped the corporation to promote their brands and products. Marks argued that, the United Nations were creating another problem while trying to solve one by promoting a soda company, knowing fully well that a large consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages increases the risk of obesity.
The mistake governments make, according to Marks, when they collaborate with industries is that they conflate the common good with common ground. They sacrifice the interest of the people on the alter of industrial collaboration.
By saying that governments should struggle or engage in conflicts with corporations, Marks means that the corporations always act to promote their commercial interests while government is saddled with the responsibility of promoting the common good, they should not leave this responsibility while trying to go into relationship with the corporations.
I have had cause to go into conflict with a police officer in my state because he demanded a bribe from me despite having all my driving particulars. I shouted at him and promise to report him to the authority if he did not desist from that practice. he became scared and allowed me to go.
