The correct answer is A) The employment rate of a nation also has social consequences.
<em>The statement that is supported by the information of the test is “The employment rate of a nation also has social consequences.”
</em>
The text is referring to the fall in formal sector employment and the social consequences it has for citizens. The example the text is using is the case of Czech Republic between 1985-1997. The text makes reference that the decline in employment has disproportionally affected women, but they are not the only case because it refers too the men decline employment. The employment rate of a nation has social consequences such as the decline of individual and family income, social exclusion, and a worsening of the life chances of their children.
The American colonists were justified in doing this simply because their colonies had become too big and too important to be treated as a colony by the British. The British should have given the colonies some autonomy, but they did not. The analogy I like to use is that of teens and their parents. Parents have to give teens more independence as they grow up. If they do not, the teens may justifiably rebel.
The British were not, on the whole, brutal or oppressive towards the colonists. However, they would not let the colonists have much in the way of self-rule. This had been fine when the colonies were still small and economically weak. By the 1760s and 1770s, however, the colonies were "teenagers." They were big and strong enough to expect some autonomy. When Britain reacted to requests for autonomy by being more strict, the colonists were justified in rebelling.
I am pretty sure the answer you are looking for is spain because <span>Spanish technology was a major factor in the defeat of the Aztecs. Spain had </span>more influence<span> than any other </span>nation<span> on the </span>colonization of Latin America<span> in the 1500s.</span>
