I would say the people of the Skaal village east of Solstheim. But i could be wrong...
I'm totally joking, i would say answer "B" since thats how we came to America.
B. Monopolies can lower and raise their prices at will.
A monopoly's potential to increase prices generally is its most critical injury to customers. Because it has no manufacturing competition, a monopoly's price is the exchange price and demand is market interest. As the sole supplier, a patent can also refuse to serve clients
Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation:
The US congress did not ratify the Genocide Convention.
Thank you for posting your question here at brainly. I hope the answer will help you. Feel free to ask more questions.
I think the <span>"peculiar parliamentary position" was "horizontal."
</span><span>Some years ago in some Commonwealth country, Uganda I think, a member of parliament was reprimanded for accusing some other member of having engaged in what he called "horizontal refreshment" with a female member of his staff in the parliament building. </span>
