Answer:
The correct answer is "The overall temperature of Earth to increase."
Explanation:
The amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in Earth's atmosphere are increasing. Carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gasses. The increasing levels of carbon dioxide and methane will cause the overall temperature of Earth to increase.
When methane is released into the air, it tends to absorb the heat from the sun and creates a warmer surrounding. This is the reason why they known as greenhouse gases because they warm the atmosphere and therefore increase the temperature of earth.
Answer:
The answer would be C.
Explanation:
A. wouldn't do anything for Mexico, it would just make more Mexican citizens flea from Mexico.
B. wouldn't work at all because a wall has been proven not to stop anyone.
D. wouldn't work either. Mexico enforcing or not enforcing anti-drug laws has been proven not to change anything. In fact, to compare this so that it makes more sense, guns are completely illegal in Mexico, and Mexican Citizens and Cartels still have so many firearms that are usually illegal in the United States. So what would happen if they even tried to change anything about enforcing fewer or more anti-drug laws?
<u>Main point is that education opportunities in Mexico would make a huge change, especially if it was more politic related because then it would cause another type of revolution to occur, resulting in people wanting to fight for a good cause and a better future for Mexico.</u>
Answer: B) False
Explanation:
Expectancy theory is the theory in which a person is motivated enough to receive reward or specific behavior and assessment of expectancy is done to see how much effort will bring out expected performance accordingly. This expectation based on performance will lead to reward achievement.
According to the question,Expectancy theory is not applied in Nathan's case as their is no motivation for completing task .So, expectancy is zero which makes zero motivation level.
Therefore, the correct option is option(B) as the given statement is false.
I believe the answer is: Both wanted to decrease taxes to increase citizens' buying power.
The supporters of their policy argued that decreasing taxes would increase the amount of money that citizens can use for their needs and goals.
The oppositions of their policy believe that decreasing taxes would reduce the government budget for their operation. This would reduce the amount of welfare that could be given for the people in needs.<span />
