Answer:
Maurice, the marketing head of a nonprofit organization, always begins his presentation on a project by sharing a lesser-known fact about the issue that the project focuses on. This helps the members of the audience get a better picture of the importance of the issue and makes them more attentive. Given this information, it can be assumed that Maurice uses persuasive means to open his presentations.
Explanation:
From the above analogy, it is a known fact that Maurice used persuasive presentation by presenting facts to support his claims in order to allow his audience to agree with his presentation.
<span>This is a dialogic form of conversation. In dialogic form of conversation everyone puts forward his/her main points and hence the conversation become dialogic. In this conversation also all the three people are putting forward their points on previous relationship that was abusive. Also each of them is participating equally.</span>
<span>North america is about 80% urbanized. this mean that about 75% of north american people live in cities. also the population is very less compared to the land area. May be people would prefer to live in urban areas rather living in rural or forest areas. this condition is helpful in preserving forest and natural resources. the only problem is the quality of living in urban areas will be poor compared to rural areas.</span>
The relationship between the straight-line and double-declining-balance method is that they D. Produce the same total depreciation over an asset's useful life.
<h3>How are the straight-line and double-declining-balance methods related?</h3>
While they do not produce the same depreciation every year, they will eventually depreciate an asset in the same way overtime.
What this means is that both methods will depreciate an asset by the same amount at the end of the asset's life. However, the depreciation amounts will vary by method on an annual basis.
In conclusion, option D is correct.
Find out more on depreciation methods at brainly.com/question/26948130.
Same as with Canada which is where both my grandfathers came from. Let's see how many reasons I can come up with just off the top of my head and just for those two.
- They enjoyed the freedom of the First Amendment (speech, press, religion, assembly -- Canada has the same provision) that was not granted in the country they left. They never exercised those rights, I don't think, but their children and grandchildren did.
- They were free to raise their children so that they had the chance of being productive. My father was an MD, but he owed that piece of good fortune to his father. The country from which they came would never have allowed him to get all that education.
- They were able to eventually bring their wives and children with them. There was enough money to be made, even at jobs that didn't pay much, to bring them across the Atlantic.
- They were able, once the families were here, to turn their attention to bettering their conditions. They never became rich, but no one starved either. That's more than could be said about those relatives who didn't do as they did.
- They were free to travel. They didn't do that, but their children and especially their grandchildren did. That too was very limited where they came from.
- They had medical care and good medical care which was not given to just anyone where they came from.
