A is your answer. hope this helps <span />
Answer:
Alexander was “great” because he easily conquered a lot of land and established prominent societies, like Alexandria.
Alexander wasn’t “great” because he was egotistical in naming a city after him and conquering land just for greed.
Alexander was “great” because he was smart enough to cross the river and use Porus’ own elephants against him.
Alexander was not “great” because he tricked a ruler and killed many men in war only because he was greedy and wanted more land.
Alexander was most likely very religious, and it seems that in Ancient Greek anyone seeking refuge in a temple should be shown mercy. Also, if Alexander had killed everyone in the city than there would have been no point in conquering the city except for land.
ano ung bandala
Explanation:
hirap nmn mas mahirap pa yung sayu kesa sakin
<em>s</em><em>o</em><em>r</em><em>r</em><em>y</em>
Many political figures at the time felt representation in Congress should be based on the amount of free men each state had and their "quota of contribution". Notably, James Madison drafted the Virginia Plan with this proposition in mind. States with a large population (Virginia being the biggest at the time), would therefore have more representatives than smaller states. Naturally, large states backed up this plan, while smaller states were against it.
In the end the issues were settled on the Connecticut Compromise, which ensured the creation of a House of Representatives apportioned by population, and a Senate in which each state is equally represented.
Hope this helps!
