<em>Answer</em><em>:</em><em> </em><em>to</em><em> </em><em>stop</em><em> </em><em>doing</em><em> </em><em>crack</em><em> </em><em>and</em><em> </em><em>cocaine</em><em> </em><em>unless</em><em> </em><em>they</em><em> </em><em>want</em><em> </em><em>to</em><em> </em><em>hurt</em><em> </em><em>themselves</em>
The best answer to this question is: a unitary state (the correct answer is b).
A unitary state is a state with a central power, one where the government has the power and administration of the whole country and where there are no autonomous regions, such as states. The "opposite" of a unitary state is a federation.
Answer:
Portugal treated the natives with violence.
Explanation:
Initialy, both Portugal and the Natives were trading. The Natives needed most of the resources, though, due to this they stopped trading. Then, Protugal showed violence against the Natives.
Answer:
<em>I can see that there are no choices.</em>
fallacy of bandwagon
Explanation:
A "logical fallacy" refers to the error of reasoning or logical gap that makes an argument invalid.
The situation above commits the fallacy of the bandwagon because the argument is being supported only according to a significant number of population. This is a fallacy because it doesn't necessarily mean all of the retired persons are unhappy about the level of Social Security assistance due to the opinion of 30 persons who agreed that they were unhappy. It becomes a "standalone justification" of the validity of an argument. We cannot judge the happiness or unhappiness of all retired persons according only to a group of 30 persons <em>(even though they were chosen from different parts of the country). </em>
So, this explains the answer.