Answer:
d. any agent used to bring about mass death, casualties, or massive infrastructural damage.
Explanation:
This is the definition that best describes what a weapon of mass destruction is. A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a type of weapon that brings about mass death, casualties or massive damage to human infrastructure, natural structures or the biosphere. The word is used more in a political sense than in a technical sense, as there is no universal agreement on what weapons would be considered WMD.
Answer: The Access and Legitimacy Paradigm.
Explanation:
The implementation of diversity within the business so as to be able to compete in diverse markets is referred to as the Access and Legitimacy Paradigm.
The business may sometimes face a market that is difficult to crack which may call them to employ or hire diverse employees who may help them break into this market. The legitimacy refers to how easy it may be to interact with individuals that look like you.
It may assist companies break into various demographic groups. If the business deal with people of different race or Ethnic groups on a daily basis having diverse employees may be very beneficial to the company because these employees can bring local knowledge which will assist the business to cater directly to the specific needs of that society where the business is located. Also it will make customers feel comfortable to speak to someone who looks like them and speak their langauge, because they may feel understood hence the business gains more customers due to diverse employees.
Calmpt Inc is that kind of company because we are told that they its customers and employees belong to different ethnic groups.
The correct answer to this question is:
Courts of Appellate
<span>The courts of appellate or most
commonly known as courts of appeals is any court of law that is empowered to heed
an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. It is the authority of a
higher court to re-examine decisions and alter outcomes of decisions of lower
courts.</span>
Explanation:
As noted, Republicans and Democrats have dominated electoral politics since the 1860s. This unrivaled record of the same two parties continuously controlling a nation’s electoral politics reflects structural aspects of the American political system as well as special features of the parties.
The standard arrangement for electing national and state legislators in the United States is the “single-member” district system, wherein the candidate who receives a plurality of the vote (that is, the greatest number of votes in the given voting district) wins the election. Although a few states require a majority of votes for election, most officeholders can be elected with a simple plurality.
Unlike proportional systems popular in many democracies, the single-member-district arrangement permits only one party to win in any given district. The single-member system thus creates incentives to form broadly based national parties with sufficient management skills, financial resources and popular appeal to win legislative district pluralities all over the country. Under this system, minor and third-party candidates are disadvantaged. Parties with minimal financial resources and popular backing tend not to win any representation at all. Thus, it is hard for new parties to achieve a viable degree of proportional representation, and achieve national clout, due to the “winner-take-all” structure of the U.S. electoral system.
Why two instead of, say, three well-financed national parties? In part because two parties are seen to offer the voters sufficient choice, in part because Americans historically have disliked political extremes, and in part because both parties are open to new ideas (see below).
It was on Great Britain, France, and Russia's side. (Their allies.)
Hoped this helped.
~Bob Ross®
