Black people in a little community on the other side of the Day Street Bridge had to walk across the bridge, about half a mile, to get to the bus. Mr. Nixon went down to the bus company to protest. He was always going down to the bus company to protest; sometimes he went by himself, sometimes he took someone with him. He himself did not ride the buses—he had his own car; but he was acting on behalf of the community. The bus company told him that as long as the people were willing to walk the half mile and then pay to ride the rest of the way downtown, they had no need to extend the bus line. Which correctly describes a cause-and-effect relationship in this excerpt?
Answer:
The answer is:
Cause: People had to walk across a bridge to catch the bus.
Effect: Mr. Nixon protested to the bus company.
Explanation:
A "cause-and-effect" relationship<u> </u><u>describes the connection between events/situations. It shows how one action/event leads to another action/event. </u>
A "cause" <u>refers to the action/event that led to another action/event.</u> This is the reason why the other action/event occurred.
An "effect"<u> refers to the action/event that happened as a result of the "cause."</u> This is the outcome of the taken action or the event that happened.
So, in the situation above. <em>Mr. Nixon protested to the bus company because the people had to walk across a bridge to catch the bus.</em> He wanted to let the bus company know on behalf of the community. He did this in order to cause a change.
Thus, this explains the answer.
YES the Puerto Rican law violated the dormant commerce clause. Puerto Rico does not have the power to regulate the cement labels because this law concerns commerce (and the US has the power to regulate commerce within the US territories and abroad).
Found this on http://www.shakespeareswords.com/
The correct answer is B. While someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking dully along.
Suffering, in Auden's (and old masters') view, is not a drastic case of the human condition. Auden doesn't single it out to depict it in its tragic magnificence. He puts it in the context of ordinary lives of people who mind their own business. It happens in circumstances that are most trivial for those other people. It seems that everyone is either ignorant or indifferent to another person's suffering.
