Answer:Tina is an exception to his stereotype about southerners.
Explanation:
Stereotypes is a belief we have about a certain group of people which is usually not grounded on reasonable or logical facts but we still believe those stereotype are true.
Alan is not likely to just dismiss his stereotype because people hold on strongly to their stereotypes and it not easy to just stop believing they are true so it easy for Alan to just think that Tina is just an exception but the stereotype is still true
Is this a true or false ? if so then the answer is false weathering is the major agent of erosion.hoped this helped
Answer:
A. If a drug found in drinking water is not a significant public health hazard, then its presence in the water will not have any discernible health effects.
Explanation:
The researchers' maintained a point of view that, the low levels of the drugs found in the water poses no significant threat to public health.
Therefore their reasoning would be most strengthened by the answer "A" chosen above because it implies that;
low levels of the drugs have been present in water over time, and yet, no health effects have been detected previously. Therefore, even if the technology to detect such low levels of the drugs is now available, it shouldn't change the fact that such levels of the drug is still not a significant health hazard.
Answer:
This significant case created the need for additional public defenders. Programs were developed in states around the country to help recruit and train public defenders. Today, the number of cases defended by public defenders is huge. For example, in 2011 in Miami Dade County, the largest of the 20 Florida Circuit Courts, approximately 100,000 cases were assigned to Public Defenders.
Miranda v. Arizona(1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents prosecutors from using a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.
