Answer:
Yes, some of the flaws in the social system according to her reviewed experiment are:
i. High cost of house rent.
ii. Inaccurate mode of determining the poverty level.
iii. Prejudice between the rich and poor.
iv. Unreliable job advertisements.
Explanation:
Barbara Ehrenreich conducted a live experiment in which she worked at minimum-wage jobs so as to know the reality of the situation with a minimum-wage worker.
Some flaws in the social system she pin-pointed are:
i. Sporadic increase in housing costs, especially in high-wage areas of the country.
ii. The official poverty level is still calculated by the archaic method of taking the cost of food for a family of a given size and multiplying this number by three. This method used to determine the level of poverty is not applicable anymore in the present society.
iii. When the rich and the poor compete for housing on the open market, the poor don’t stand a chance.
iv. Job advertisements are not reliable determinant of the actual jobs available at any particular time.
She gave a general solution by imploring the government to step in and help.
<span>The feats made by the army of Sargon I over through Lugalzagesi, conquered Sumer and expanded his empire to Lebanon and as far as the Taurus mountains of Turkey. Sargon I formed the first first empire and developed the first postal service and created a taxation standard that was fair to all the social classes.</span>
Answer:
Because while the president of India is formally the head of state, and the commander of the armed forces, the president does not have any actual power, and his role is ceremonial.
Explanation:
It is the prime minister of India who has real power, and who actually commands the armed forces, and governs the country.
This is why India has what is known as a parliamentary system: the head of government, who has executive power, is the prime minister, who comes from the party with the largest amount of seats in the parliament.
This system is inherited from Britain, where it was first developed. In fact, the president of India is the equivalent to the Queen of Britian. They are heads of state, but they do not hold any real power.
Wealth in the form of money or assets owned by a person
Answer:
For the first, I would say being poorly represented.
For the second, ignorance and morals.
Explanation:
A lot of people have been raised to demand a change when they see injustices, some might go at it in a violent way, others might approach it in a more peaceful way. One thing you have to know about making big decisions, is that you will never please everyone. Someone is always going to be mad. It depends on their moral values as people. If you saw something that you thought was morally wrong, you would be upset too. They have tried peaceful protests and weren't heard, now they choose to incite violence because they have a voice and are represented in the media that way.
It all leads down to morals. The media says that if you aren't for it, you're automatically against it. If something the media does or activists do doesn't allign with people's morals, they choose the complete opposite because they think that's their only option.