Answer:
In the past, learners were required to achieve at least 50% in four specific designated subjects that were the same nationwide. However, this was recently changed - the new requirements include attaining the same percentage in any four subjects that have 20 credits from a list of subjects.
This change has certain advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that there will be more students with better percentages applying for various high education institutions as it should now be easier for them to pick subjects they are most confident in and that will be relevant for their further education. Their focus will also be on those most important subjects for them and their studies instead of on something they might not even need in their future career.
However, a disadvantage is that students might pick subjects they find easiest just to secure their place in a university. Those subjects ultimately might not provide them with needed strategies for thinking and learning that otherwise designated subjects might have. Furthermore, some higher education institutions might have their own lists of designated subjects and minimum entry requirements that might not be the same as the student's choices.
There are democrats and republican parties from each state and the person running for president is trying to get for example the most democratic votes / republican votes depends what party they are running for
The establishment of spheres of influence in China by Europeans! :)
Answer:i think it would be the very last one.
Explanation:sorry i had to look it up.
Answer:
That argument is an example of a falacy masquerading as a valid inference.
Explanation:
Fallacy means error, deception or falsehood. Usually a fallacy is a misconception that is conveyed as true, misleading others. On the other hand, when an argument conveying a true idea is used to derive a false conclusion from false assumptions, the inference is valid.
Based on this, we can conclude that the argument quoted in the above question is a fallacy disguised as valid inference, because the speaker of the argument provides the information as a true statement, but it is wrong to draw conclusions about how Anthony will react after his accident, based on how other people reacted.