Answer:
Customers
Explanation:
According to my research on Economics, I can say that based on the information provided within the question in this hypothetical situation, Customers are acting as an external force for change. These external forces refers to any factor outside a certain business or organization that will affect the business in one way or another, either for good or bad. In this scenario the customers not shopping at the store is an external force that is negatively affecting sales for the business.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
Stapleton indicated in the <u>Critical Deaf Theory</u> that audism is a phenomenon that is socially constructed and posits that audism occurs regularly. This is closely linked to deficit error.
<h3>What is Audism?</h3>
This is the practice of discriminating against people who have hearing challenges. This prejudice may occur in the following ways:
- trying to assist people who are deaf to communicate:
- asking a person with hearing challenges to read one's lips or write against their wish or preferred mode of communication
- refusing to get an interpreter at the request of a deaf person.
Audism is very similar to Deficit Error.
Please see the link below for more about Deficit Error:
brainly.com/question/8412510
Answer:
Yes...?
What do you plan on doing with my soul???
Answer:The Statute is an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause.
Explanation:The Statute is an unconstitutional violation of the Commerce Clause. Regulation of foreign commerce is exclusively a federal power because of the need for the federal government to speak with one voice when regulating commercial relations with foreign governments. The existence of legitimate state interests underlying state legislation will not justify state regulation of foreign commerce. The state statute, in imposing requirements for a license costing $50 and for a clear marking of goods as being from a foreign country, clearly is an attempt by the state to restrict or even eliminate the flow of such goods in foreign commerce. Thus, the statute is unconstitutional.
Answer:
D and B
Explanation: i googled it lol