<h3>
Answer:</h3>
The radio talk listeners
<h3>
Explanation:</h3>
The reason why the "radio talk listeners" would be the correct answer is because this would be the "implied population".
The implied population is a group of people that's part of the "data".
In this case, the listeners are the one's that called the talk show host, due to the fact that they're listening in on the radio and hear what the talk show host told them to do.
They would be part of the "data" they the talk show host is collecting.
The data would be the 9 people that said yes, 6 people saying no, and 15 total callers.
All in all, the radio talk listeners are the implied population because they were the one's that are part of the "data" that the radio talk show host is collecting from the phone calls they received.
<h3>I hope this helped you out.</h3><h3>Good luck on your academics.</h3><h3>Have a fantastic day!</h3>
This is a religious reason.
This desire was the motivation of the crusaders who wanted to bring Jerusalem, and other sites that witness the life of Jesus, into the hands of the Christians, and away from the Muslims, so that Christians can worship in this sites.
It is true so the answer is A
Temperatures in heavily populated South Asia will exceed habitable levels by the end of this century without efforts to stem manmade climate change, according to new research.
Researchers behind the study, published in the journal Science Advances, found that 4% percent of the South Asian population is expected to experience temperature and humidity conditions in which humans cannot survive without air conditioning by 2100. Three quarters of the population will experience environmental conditions considered dangerous, even if not downright unlivable.
Answer:
10
Explanation:
In 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed that in determining any risk, regulators should assume children have 10 times the exposure risk of adults to cancer-causing chemicals. Some health scientists contends that these guidelines are too weak. They suggest that, to be on safe side, we should assume that the risk of harm from toxins is 100 times that of adults. Others support doing this on ethical grounds, they say it is wrong not to give children much greater protection from harmful chemicals in the environment.
