Answer:
Correct answer is They were weak and sometimes dishonest.
Explanation:
First option is correct as the Roman Empire, especially western part was very unstable. That was additionally upheld by the fact that most of them since the division of Empire in 395 had no authority and brought many wrong decision.
Second option is not correct as we cannot say that they were popular at all.
Third option is not correct, as one of the ways how we were able to see their incompetence was through the fact that they practically made no reform.
Last option is also not correct as people weren't directly choosing them.
Historians use a standard shorthand, “Gold, God, and Glory,” to describe the motives generating the overseas exploration, expansion, and conquests that allowed various European countries to rise to world power between 1400 and 1750. “Gold” refers to the search for material gain through acquiring and selling Asian spices, African slaves, American metals, and other resources. As merchants gained influence in late-medieval western Europe, they convinced their governments to establish a direct connection to the lucrative Asian trade, leading to the first European voyages of discovery in the 1400s. “God” refers to the militant crusading and missionary traditions of Christianity, characterized in part by rivalry with Islam and hatred of non-Christian religions. “Glory” alludes to the competition between monarchies. Some kings sought to establish their claims to newly contacted territories so as to strengthen their position in European politics and increase their power at the expense of the landowning nobility. They also embraced the ideology of mercantilism, which held that governments and large private companies should cooperate to increase the state’s wealth by increasing the reserves of precious metals. Motivated by these three aims, several western European peoples gained control or influence over widening segments of the globe during the Early Modern Era. By 1914 Europeans dominated much of the world politically and economically. Hope this helps!
"If they are used ocassionally, antiacids don't produce any risk. But used daily, they can cause a "rebound" reaction: heartburn pain can actually worsen and some people experience diarrhea or constipation from certain antiacids."
This is an example of structural-functional theory. It is because that theory explains of how one affects the other depending on how they work. They see the society in a more complex system rather than a different way in which how Emile thinks with how he explains the given example above. This theory most likely promotes stability.
Answer:
D). High in probability and low in consequence.
Explanation:
This situation could be best described as high in probability and low in consequence as Jim employs the instinctive approach to this manage this risk. Instincts imply the inclination towards a specific complex behavior of people which is contrary to the reflexes that are entirely based on the stimulus responses of people. <em>Jim's behavior illustrates the high-probability and low-consequence which implies that his action(inhaled his frozen confection) does not contain any destructive consequence as it occurs in the case of low-probability and high-consequence case.</em> Thus, option D is the correct answer.
