Answer:
business meeting structure
Explanation:
For example, during a meeting with managers, technicians and financial director and sales director, the communication should flow from one another naturally despite of the hierarchy, since all participants have respect and politeness.
<span>Gandhi's response was to hold a satyagraha [holding to the truth], a campaign of civil disobedience expressed in nonviolent resistance to what he regarded as unjust laws. He organized his first while in South Africa in 1907. </span>
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Based on the Judicial Branch the court case that stands out to me the most is Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.
For me, this is one of the most important cases in the history of the United States.
The case was decided on May 17, 1954. The Supreme Court decided that state laws in the US public school system that kept racial segregation were unconstitutional.
This was a major advancement in the country regarding the shameful subject of racism. After the US Supreme Court decision, racial segregation in public schools of America ended, at least in theory and by judicial mandate.
Upper class individuals are more likely to work in safer environments, such as an office is not an explanation for the given statement.
Answer: Option C
<u>Explanation:</u>
In the given statement the discussion involves life expectancy with respect to education, occupation and income and explain its meaning that upper class live longer and healthier lives than those in lower class.
But the statement that upper class individuals are more likely to work in safer environments, such as an office do not categorize statement according to lower or upper class, that safer environment for work can be available among educated, occupated and handsome income constituted society only, because many brutal cases are examples of unsafe working atmosphere too and even in well structured office.
Education, Occupation and Income are sources of happiness but decision to stay happy and sensible for either rich or poor basically generate from within’s intellectual learning and not biased with any race.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.
During a two-hour interrogation, Miranda confessed to the crimes. Lawyers would contend that Miranda had not been clearly informed of his rights to have a lawyer and against self-incrimination. Their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court would forever change U.S. criminal procedure
