The Proclamation of 1763<span> was issued October 7, </span>1763, by King George III following Great Britain's win over the French territory in North America after the end of the French and Indian War. which forbade all settlement past a line drawn along the Appalachian Mountains.
Answer:
Option A, made all representation proportionate to the size of individual states, is the right answer.
Explanation:
- The Sherman Compromise is also called the Great Compromise or the Connecticut compromise.
- It was an agreement made between the small and the large states to define the power of each state would have in the Constitution of the United States and the legislature.
- This compromise presented a dual system of congressional representation.
- According to this compromise, each state, in the House of Representative, would be allocated seats in proportion to the population of its state.
- Moreover, the same number of seats would be assigned to all the states in the Senate.
The Line of Demarcation between Portugal and Spain was very unfair because Portugal got less land.
<h3>What was the line of demarcation?</h3>
This was an agreement that was signed between Spain and Portugal in order to forestall any conflict arising from either of them fighting for land in the New World.
The Line of Demarcation gave Portugal all the land to the East and gave Spain the land to the West. This was unfair to the Portuguese who ended up getting only Brazil while the Spanish got most of South America and the gold and wealth that came with it.
Find out more on the Line of Demarcation at brainly.com/question/699507
#SPJ1
Explanation:
As governance indicators have proliferated in recent years, so has their use and the controversy that surrounds them. As more and more voices are pointing out, existing indicators – many of them developed and launched in the 1990s – have a number of flaws. This is particularly disquieting at a time when governance is at the very top of the development agenda.
Many questions of crucial importance to the development community – such as issues around the relationship between governance and (inclusive) growth, or about the effectiveness of aid in different contexts – are impossible to answer with confidence as long as we do not have good enough indicators, and hence data, on governance.
The litany of problems concerning existing governance indicators has been growing:
Indicators produced by certain NGOs (e.g. the Heritage Foundation), but also by commercial risk rating agencies (such as the PRS Group), are biased towards particular types of policies, and consequently, the assessment of governance becomes mingled with the assessment of policy choices;
Many indicators rely on surveys of business people (e.g. the World Economic Forum's Executive Opinion Survey). While they have important insights into governance challenges given their interaction with government bureaucracies, the views of other stakeholders are also important and remain underrepresented, as are concerns about governance of less relevance to the business community (e.g. civil and human rights);
The other main methodology used are indicators produced by individuals or small groups of external experts – for example, the World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA), Bertelsmann’s Transformation Index, and the French Development Agency’s Institutional Profiles. This entails the risk that different experts ‘feed’ on each other’s ratings; and the depth to which external raters are able to explore the dimensions they are rating can vary.
Answer:
Several reasons: military and technological superiority, better military and administrative organization, an industrial economy backing military capacity, one that was poised and able to benefit from the conquest and colonization of new lands rich in raw materials; the need to access to raw materials and open new markets.
Explanation:
