The air is a major part of it and it blows it around
Answer:
FIRST: You had tell the person that you were going to start an action against them to be heard in "court". You had to bring witnesses with you so your witnesses could testify that the person was told why you were bringing an action, and that you had given this person a date, time, and location that they had to appear in court to defend themselves.
SECOND: You had to post a written notice near the courthouse that clearly stated the names of both parties, the charges, and the date, time, and location of your first trip to court on this action.
FIRST TIME IN COURT: The first trip gave both parties a chance to speak before a judge. If the judge felt there was enough cause, that judge would assign a trial date. That trial date had to be posted as well.
JURY SELECTION, TRIAL BY JURY: To be on a jury, you had to be a citizen. You had to be over 30 years of age. You had to swear that you would be fair to both sides. You did get paid. Juries were selected from volunteers. The number of jurors could be huge. Some trials had as many as 500 jurors who had volunteered to judge a case. Only the jury could bring in a decision that someone was guilty or innocent. The judge only kept order, but could not decide a trial outcome.
THE TRIAL: Both sides presented their case. Then the jurors voted. Majority ruled.
PUNISHMENT: Punishments varied. If found guilty, both sides, the person bringing the charge and the person being charged, suggested a punishment. The jury could not choose a third choice. They had to choice one suggestion or the other.
Explanation:
I agree with these perspectives on the grounds that there are a few situations where an individual planned to follow up on a good aim however the result wasn't right and here and there an individual expect to act awful after something and the activity ended up being great. My point is that occasionally unexpected things can happen and cause a change to a condition that we have no power in. I trust that an individual ought to be judged in light of their expectations, not their activities.
Answer:
C. Critical
Explanation:
A non-directional hypothesis talks about how an independent variable has an effect on the dependent variable. The direction of the effect isn’t a definite one.
This form of hypothesis would entail the use of a critical test to ascertain its authenticity due to the effect not being a definite one. This means extra tests and caution are employed in this case.
This is why critical tests is the right choice.
They found that <span>since the very young and the elderly spend more time at home, these groups would likely be victims in family homicide situations.
This happens because the perpetrators tend to see the very young and elderlies as the people who do not possess the power to fight back, which make them believe they could get away with the criminal act. What more terrifying is that the perpetrators in these circumstances tend to be the acquaintances of the family.</span>
