Answer:
a belief in supernatural story
Answer:
The answer is - Optimistic
Explanation:
Explanatory style is the way in which we explain the events that happen to us in our lives, either good or bad. There is the pessimistic explanatory style and the optimistic explanatory style.
The optimistic explanatory style are characterized by explanations for negative outcomes as being due to unstable, specific and external causes so we do not blame ourselves 100% for things that go wrong, and that the negative events will end soon and they would not let it affect too many aspects of their lives. While positive outcomes are seen as being due to stable, global and internal causes.
Lara is using optimistic explanatory style therefore she tends to have more positive explanatory style as she takes credit for positive experiences, believes that the good things will last and they will favorably affect other aspects of her life.
The Judicial is the strongest because of the branches cause of checks and balances and for that it has absolute arbiter of and Government actions. The Executive Branch's only check on the judiciary is appointment, the president can't remove a justice, only nominate new justices.
hope this helps ^-^
There is no objective answer to this question, as both sides have arguments that support their views.
If you believe that you are bound by Hobbes' argument, it is because of tacit consent. Tacit consent means that, even though you have not explicitly agreed to follow laws, you have indicated your agreement through other means, for example, by using the public services of the government or by remaining within the limits of your country. Also, you could argue that any rational person would prefer to follow the rules of the government than to live in the state of nature. Therefore, if you are rational, your consent is assumed. Finally, you could also argue that while you did not explicitly agreed, maybe your ancestors did, which still binds you as a member of the same society.
On the other hand, if you believe that you are not bound by Hobbes' argument, you could argue that any contract that is not freely agreed upon is not valid. As the government uses force to make you act according to the law, you cannot be considered to be freely consenting. Also, you can argue that agreeing to follow some rules does not imply following <em>all</em> of the laws of the country. Finally, a common argument against Hobbes is the lack of empirical data. As we do not know if the state of nature is actually bad, or if the contract ever happened, the government cannot gain its legitimacy in that way.
Answer:
SLAVES BECAUSE THEY BUILT DIFERENT
Explanation:
