The 1911 revolution in China ended the rule of the Qing Dynasty. The correct option among all the options that are given in the question is the first option or option "1". The Xinhai Revolution ended 2000 years of Imperial rule in China. I hope the answer has come to your help.
The correct answer is: William James and John Dewey would be most interested in how behavior aids one´s adaptation to the environment.
Both <em>William James </em>and <em>John Dewey</em>, are phycologists associated with what is known as <em>Functionalism</em>. This method is heavily influenced by Darwin's ideas about adaptation to the environment. Over time we have been able to observe significant changes in the physical and behavioral aspects of human beings. These changes in behavior and in life style show us the capacity of adaptation of humans. Humans frequently adapt to the place they live in, this means that their body parts, the functions these body parts perform, as well as their behavior give human more survival and reproductive possibilities. If Darwin was correct, there is variation or differences in adaptation resulting in natural selection.
Behavior can change, also, due to psychological states such as beliefs or values. Universal structures in behavior are adjusted by experience and culture. The biological characteristics of men have changed from the ones of primitive men, which dedicated their life to hunting and fishing. Now days we have other priorities and we behave according to them, or to satisfy them.
Many of the people who have come to Mexico City have ended up living in "surrounding" areas, since life in the city itself is very fast paced and dense, meaning that many people wish to enjoy the benefits of the city without being there directly.
The people would respond favorable to a change in leadership if the current government fails to do what they said they would do (the positive things at least), fail to even do the minimum, or the people just don't like the current leader for one reason or another
hope this helps
The answer is B, because any law defying the constitution is not law, therefore, the states would then not be able to deny a woman’s right to vote individually so long as there is a constitutional amendment stating otherwise.
