A thesis statement that would not be acceptable is <u>B. The </u><u>Chesapeake </u><u>and </u><u>New England colonies </u><u>developed into</u><u> two distinct societies </u><u>based on their </u><u>geography</u><u>, </u><u>reasons </u><u>for </u><u>founding</u><u>, </u><u>economic </u><u>characteristics, and </u><u>relationships </u><u>with </u><u>American Indians.</u>
You did not include the prompt in the question but the above should be the best answer.
The New England Colonies and the Chesapeake colonies were different in that:
- New England colonies were founded to escape religious persecution while the Chesapeake colonies were founded to make profit
- New England colonies engaged in shipping, food production and lumbering whereas the Chesapeake colonies focused on tobacco.
Even though they were different in the above regard, their treatment of Native Americans was the same as they both started off with peaceful relations with the Natives which eventually deteriorated into war.
We can therefore conclude that even though they differed in several ways, they did not differ in Native treatment which would make option B wrong.
<em>Find out more at brainly.com/question/18193023.</em>
It is true that aggressive driving is the use of a vehicle as a weapon or in a manner to physically assault a driver or their vehicle while on the road way.
Answer: Option A
<u>Explanation:</u>
It is very important for provider agencies to provide access to information service and benefits, even when the customers do not have proper proficiency in English.
When this is being carried out, it has to be done carefully as one has to avoid jargon when provider agencies provide information to the people who do not have a proficiency in English as there are chances of jargon i.e., a person might not understand certain key words said by the communicator.
1. ) <span>C. They wanted better wages and homes.
2.) </span><span>A. Both developed from the Good Neighbor Policy with the United States.
3.) </span><span>B. It helped a few African colonies gain independence from their rulers.
please comment if I am wrong </span>
This is certainly a sensible topic and I'm afraid there's no easy answer as it's very dependant on context.
The criteria for rejecting or accepting certain immigrants will vary depending on the cultural and political relationship between the country where each immigrant comes from and the country they intend to relocate to.
Every nation should aspire to generate conditions of tolerance in which ethnic or racial differences don't represent a threat to the safety of their communities. To achieve this, it would require governments a sustained effort to educate its people in favor of diversity and apply policies that encourage freedom and protect civil liberties. <u>However, </u>t<u>his is a long and arduous process that history has shown sometimes may take several centuries</u>.
In many cases, the tensions between different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds are so high at the present time, that there's no other way to ensure safety than limiting specific types of immigration in certain regions. That is why to me, it is legitimate for a country to take nationality, race and religion into account when deciding who they let in, as long as the government keeps moving towards tolerance in the long-run.
Hope this helps!
Answer:
The Answer is in the explanation bellow
Explanation:
Make a bold claim. A bold statement at the beginning of your presentation is guaranteed to get you attention. ...
Invite them to 'Imagine' ...
Present a striking fact or statistic. ...
Ask a question. ...
Tell a story or anecdote. ...
Use an aphorism or proverb. ...
Make it mysterious. ...
Introduce an analogy or metaphor.
