Answer:
The differences between the piety of 19th century Protestants (revivals), and 17th century Puritans and 18th century deists (some founding fathers) is discussed below in details.
Explanation:
- The Puritanism that occurred under those such as the Mathers is a perfect, wholly contrived, rather round concept that consisted of five separate agreements.
- The most important difference is that they considered predestination whereas the present Protestant has adopted Salvation by Grace.
- Puritans held the view that individuals were not created similar, and certain selves were decided for bliss, while others were not to be as blessed.
- On the other hand, Deists were strong devotees in the idea that every person was created equal.
<span>The correct answer is that after the death of Alexander The Great, The current Macedonian generals during his time were arguing about, who will take over Alexander's great empire, after the argument, three distinct leaders were entitled, Antigonnus, Ptolemy, and Selecus. One was the ruled of the Macedonian Greek city-states, the other won over the tile of pharaoh on Egypt and lastly, the other won over control on the Persian Empire.</span>
Answer:
The detail that best supports the answer to part A is:
“The Internet has radically changed how news sources communicate with their audience, and it has made it harder to define ‘news media’ exactly.” ( Paragraph 1)
Explanation:
The passage talks about different sources of 'news media'. It can be newspapers or radio or various internet sources which either read or write about the recent events happening across the globe. The passage also says that news media tries to unbiased as much as possible but it is very difficult to decide whether a given information is unbiased or not.
The detail from text which supports this is Option A. It says how internet being so wide these days that it becomes difficult to make out which news from 'news media' is correct and unbiased.
If the system were being designed today, such a design probably would be rejected as unfair. Part of the problem is that the Framers were dealing with a less lopsided distribution. The ratio between most populous state and least populous stat in 1789 was about 7 to 1. Today, the ratio between California and Wyoming population is 50 to 1.
But the Senate made sense to the Framers in 1787 for a particular reason. At that time, all 13 former colonies were like independent nations or independent countries. They could mint their own coins, print their own money, and conduct international diplomacy directly with other nations. There are lots of reasons this was unsatisfactory. It produced economic chaos and a poor prospect of winning future wars, but it did give each state the status of a country.
Now, imagine you’re a small state like New Hampshire. Right now, you completely control your own destiny. Why do you want to join a Union unless you’re guaranteed a strong voice in that Union? Now, all the arguments that people still have about the Electoral College (“The big states would push all the little states around!”) actually do apply.
It is the Senate that does a superb job… if anything TOO good a job… of protecting “small states rights.” You can argue that it is an unfair system, and it probably is… but the point is this: In 1787, the question of how to get small states like New Hampshire to join this new Union, which was after all seemed like a risky experiment, was a big problem.
It’s really for political reasons, not absolute fairness, that the Senate was created in such a way as to give equal representation to each state. It seemed necessary in 1787. But there were lots of things that could not be foreseen, such as the rise of a strong national culture and the eventually lopsided ratios between the most populous and least populous states.
Now, let me address the “House of Representatives” question. How can the Senate be based on 2-senators-per-state while the House is based on population?
Answer:
Long answer short
Explanation: Women in ancient China did not enjoy the status, either social or, excel in four areas: fidelity, cautious speech, industriousness, and graceful.
Your welcome
