I believe the answer to this is "true." Really, all conclusions on all events are subjective. But considering history, conclusions on events are especially prone to subjectivity. Consider who writes the history books. If one country wins a war against another country, they will write about themselves as the noble party and portray the enemy as villainous. However, this may not be the real case. This occurs much more than we think, and we must research different events to make sure we are not blindly buying into what people say. Hope this helps.
Each year, millions of people fail to vote without reproach. Does abstention constitute a citizen's right not to vote? This article in Australian Journal of Political Science explores whether we have a legal right to a 'no vote' and if such a right should be protected as fiercely as the right to vote. Lisa Hill discusses the 'no vote', its implications for society and reaches a firm conclusion.
Answer:
It is C (Then Theseus called together all the people in the house, poor wretches whom Procrustes had forced to serve him, and he divided the robber's spoils among them and told them they were free to go wherever they wished)
Explanation:
I took this test and got it right. :)
Answer:
We
Explanation:
A subject is someone/something that is doing the action. <u>We</u> loved our new bunk beds.
I am thinking.. accomplice?
