Answer:
The answer is Kulaks
Explanation:
The term Kulak referred to peasants who owned more than 8 acres of land and were considered “hesitating allies” of the revolution. In the 1930s, with Joseph Stalin in control of the Soviet Union, kulaks were decimated; peasants who became wealthier from 1906 to 1914 thanks to the <em>Stolypin Reform</em> were targeted as kulaks, <u>but also anyone who withheld grain from the Bolsheviks</u>. From 1929 to 1932 the dekulakization consisted on the arrest, deportation and execution of millions of prosperous peasants in order to seize their lands as part of Stalin’s first five years plan on the attempt to create new policies centred on a rapid industrialization and collectivization of agriculture (aimed to integrate individual landholdings and labour into collectively-controlled and state-controlled farms).
not sure if this helps but I hope it does
sorry its so long
To date erosion scientists have failed to address — or have addressed inadequately — some of the ‘big questions’ of our discipline. For example, where is erosion occurring? Why is it happening, and who is to blame? How serious is it? Who does it affect? What should be the response? Can we prevent it? What are the costs of erosion? Our inability or reluctance to answer such questions damages our credibility and is based on weaknesses in commonly-used approaches and the spatial and temporal scales at which much research is carried out. We have difficulty in the recognition, description and quantification of erosion, and limited information on the magnitude and frequency of events that cause erosion. In particular there has been a neglect of extreme events which are known to contribute substantially to total erosion. The inadequacy and frequent misuse of existing data leaves us open to the charge of exaggeration of the erosion problem (a la Lomborg).
Models need to be developed for many purposes and at many scales. Existing models have proved to be of limited value, in the real as opposed to the academic world, both because of problems with the reliability of their results, and difficulties (with associated costs) of acquiring suitable data. However, there are some positive signs: models are now being developed for purposes including addressing questions of off-site impacts and land-use policy. Cheap, reliable and technically simple methods of erosion assessment at the field scale are needed. At the global scale, an up-date of GLASOD based on a scientific approach is urgent so that we are at least able to identify erosion ‘hotspots’.
In terms of explanation of erosion, the greatest need is for a full recognition of the importance of socio-economic drivers. The accession of new countries to the EU with different economic and land-use histories emphasises this need. Too often we have left people, especially the farmers, out of the picture. Our approach could be characterised as ‘data-rich and people-poor’.
Answer:
A.
Explanation:
While D is also correct, A is most correct. The US government cannot offer public services and other tax fueled services if everyone chooses not to pay.
The answer is superseding. An intervening cause will by and large clear the tortfeasor of obligation for the casualty's damage just if the occasion is esteemed a superseding cause. A superseding cause is an unforeseeable intervening cause. By differentiate, a predictable intervening cause commonly does not break the chain of causality, implying that the tortfeasor is as yet in charge of the casualty's damage—unless the occasion prompts an unforeseeable outcome.
