Answer:
All of them
Explanation:
The king condemning his own peaceful actions to be the cause of violence is in complete contradiction to one another. An oddity occurs and the action is in complete contrast to the outcome. One cannot justify that the corresponding actions may have led to the specific outcome. such is also the case in the example:
a; condemning a robbed man for having too much money does in no way justifies the action of robbing. Blaming a source that was done only for the reason of ones own satisfaction.
b; condemning Socrates for his truth to force people to make him drink the hemlock, is as absurd as the above example.
c; condemning Jesus for his devotion to God shows that the intention of the action was completely different but the outcome was in complete contrast.
Answer:
Serving on a jury would be a civic responsibility.
Hope I helped! ☺
Ones fake and ones real i think
Great Britain and the colonies had a so and so relationship mostly. Sometimes there were issues related to trade and religion. Some people separated from Great Britain to come to the colonies for purposes such as religious freedom.
Answer: C. Real interest rate
Explanation:
I just took the test, and i got it right :)
Can I get the brainliest answer pls?
