1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
ELEN [110]
3 years ago
9

_______ causes severe malnutrition and famine.

History
2 answers:
adelina 88 [10]3 years ago
6 0

War causes severe malnutrition. Option A is correct.  

In addition to developed economies, drought and poverty, the violence of war also leads to severe malnutrition.

Because of war or conflict, people living in war-torn cities or countries have to flee, their plot of land or cattle were destroyed or stolen and the insecurity blocks people from going to the market.

Malnutrition refers to deficiencies, excesses or imbalances in a person's intake of energy and/or nutrients.

anyanavicka [17]3 years ago
5 0
The correct answer is B - poverty.
You might be interested in
explain how the Wilmot Proviso was so controversial in raising the debate over the slave issue again to such intense levels.
Pachacha [2.7K]

The Whigs faced a different scenario. The victory of James K. Polk (Democrat) over Henry Clay (Whig) in the 1844 presidential election had caught the southern Whigs by surprise. The key element of this defeat, which carried over into the congressional and local races in 1845 and 1846 throughout the South, was the party's failure to take a strong stand favoring Texas annexation. Southern Whigs were reluctant to repeat their mistakes on Texas, but, at the same time, Whigs from both sections realized that victory and territorial acquisition would again bring out the issue of slavery and the territories. In the South in particular, there was already the realization, or perhaps fear, that the old economic issues that had defined the Second Party System<span> were already dead. Their political goal was to avoid any sectional debate over slavery which would expose the sectional divisions within the party.</span>After an earlier attempt to acquire Texas by treaty had failed to receive the necessary two-thirds approval of the Senate, the United States annexed the Republic of Texas by a joint resolution of Congress that required simply a majority vote in each house of Congress. President John Tyler signed the bill on March 1, 1845, a few days before his term ended. As many expected, the annexation led to war with Mexico. After the capture of New Mexico and California in the first phases of the war, the political focus shifted to how much territory would be acquired from Mexico. The key to this was the determination of the future status of slavery in any new territory.

Both major political parties had labored long to keep divisive slavery issues out of national politics. The Democrats had generally been successful in portraying those within their party attempting to push a purely sectional issue as extremists that were well outside the normal scope of traditional politics.[2] However, midway through Polk's term, Democratic dissatisfaction with the administration was growing within the Martin Van Buren, or Barnburner, wing of the Democratic Party over other issues. Many felt that Van Buren had been unfairly denied the party's nomination in 1844 when southern delegates resurrected a convention rule, last used in 1832, requiring that the nominee had to receive two-thirds of the delegate votes. Many in the North were also upset with the Walker tariff which reduced the tariff rates; others were opposed to Polk's veto of a popular river and harbor improvements bill, and still others were upset over the Oregon settlement with Great Britain where it appeared that Polk did not pursue the northern territory with the same vigor he used to acquire Texas. Polk was seen more and more as enforcing strict party loyalty primarily to serve southern interests. Hope This Helps! Can I have Brainliest? Please:)

7 0
2 years ago
What part did gunpowder play in the relation between European nations and people in other lands?
Firdavs [7]
Gunpowder played a very beneficial role for the Europeans and a very detrimental role for the natives when it came to conquest, since almost all the natives in the newly-discovered lands could only fight back with man-made weapons such as spears. <span />
6 0
3 years ago
The farmer who is delicates in this image would be representative of what level of French society
ozzi
The answer is c. Third estate
8 0
2 years ago
What century did the year 1099 take place in?
Arlecino [84]
The answer is the first century
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How were the lives of white people in the north and south alike and different?
Serggg [28]

They were both farmers and the north used more factories while the south didn't.

5 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • Why did samuel adams use the word massacre to describe the events of march 5, 1770?
    14·1 answer
  • What method did colonists use to avoid using the official, taxed tea?
    7·2 answers
  • How did roads contribute to the empires sucsess?
    11·1 answer
  • What type of verbs should be used in an analysis
    12·1 answer
  • 5. Why did it take 2 years for the U.S. to enter WW2 and why did we finally enter the war?
    6·1 answer
  • Which country was not a scene of early fighting in world war 2?
    13·1 answer
  • Which of the following was NOT a reform movement of the 1800s?
    7·1 answer
  • What legislation was a significant milestone in the history of federal telework?
    11·1 answer
  • WHAT POLITICAL ROLE DID THE WOMEN PLAY IN THE TRANSFORMATION OF SOUTH AFRICA FORM THE 1970s TO THE 1990S essay.​
    13·1 answer
  • socialism, communism and fascism is supposed to improve people’s lives, especially their economic condition. Which do you think
    5·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!