<u>Answer:</u>
<em>The specialized issues of Whitney's plan prompted practically quick changes that were instituted by different ranchers and designers. </em>
<em>The wire teeth on the spinning chamber, for instance, were immediately supplanted by a progression of roundabout saws. The birthplaces of the adjustment are foggy, yet as more gins with these saws were conveyed.</em>
<u>Explanation:</u>
Cotton becoming turned out to be so productive for the grower that it <em>extraordinarily expanded their interest for both land and slave work.</em> There Whitney immediately discovered that Southern grower were in urgent need of an approach to make the becoming of cotton gainful.
Long-staple cotton, which was anything but difficult to isolate from its seeds, could be become distinctly along the coast. The one <em>assortment that developed inland had clingy green seeds that were tedious to choose of the cushy white cotton bolls.</em>
They are alike because both had slaves and women could not take part in government. They are different because Athens was a democracy and Sparta was a strictly-ruled military state. In Athens, women had very few rights. In Sparta, women had more rights than other city-statesp
answer: c
explanation: there are no explanation
Answer:
Plato believed that the aristocracy would allow only people with the right intellect to rule the country efficiently. He believed that aristocracy was the combination of wisdom and virtue and that this is reserved for only a limited number of noble citizens who have full access to the highest quality education.
Explanation:
The aristocracy is a way of establishing a national government through specific people in society who would have all the power of governance in a country. These people would be chosen through noble lineage and wealth.
Aristoteles and Plato were great supporters of these systems, as they believed that only people with full access to quality education would have sufficient ethical and moral intellect to be a head of government. Only nobles had this access.
These philosophers believed that the aristocracy was much better than democracy, because democracy gave freedom to anyone to stand for political office, in addition to allowing people who had no access to education and therefore a "low intellect" to choose those who would represent the government.
Although today, some people believe that the aristocracy is a good form of government, we know that it is not right to believe that. This is because keeping a country's governance power in the hands of a single family, where the post of head of state is chosen through a lineage is very dangerous.
Democracy allows us to remove tyrannical and inefficient leaders from power and choose that candidate who represents ideas that will benefit the country and lead its people to advance.
This is a big topic, so I can only start to give some positives and negatives:
Positives: it can provide a protection and it "saves" the things that worked: if it worked for a society before to have a special group of soldiers, this can be provided by a social structure: the society will have a group of soldiers and non-soldiers.
Negatives: it can carry on social injustices, such as when in India some people are "untouchables" and they cannot hold any jobs apart from the very worst ones (just as working with waste disposal).