Hello! I'm not quite sure what this question is asking for, but economics deals with production and distribution of wealth. I hope this helps!
Answer:
No, death of Mercutio does not seem to be justified.
Death of Mercutio can not be justified because his death was accidental.
Neither Tybalt's death seem to be justified.
Explanation:
Romeo and Juliet is a Romantic Tragedy written by William Shakespeare.
In Act 3, Scene 1, of the play, in a feud between Tybalt and Mercutio, Mercutio was killed accidentally by Tybalt. Tybalt and Mercutio entered the sword fight after Tybalt continues to instigate Romeo for fight and Mercutio, being hot-tempered, challenged Tybalt for the feud. To stop the fight, Romeo enters the feud and in this, Tybalt's sword escapes Romeo's arm and stabs Mercutio to death.
So, this shows that Mercutio does not seem to die and his death can not be justified as his death was an accident.
Death of Tybalt also does not seem to be justified as he was killed in anger by Romeo to avenge the death of his friend, Mercutio. After killing Tybalt, Romeo also seem to realize that he should not have killed Tybalt.
President Kennedy's phrase "the bonds of injustice" refers to the social and economic oppression of the slaves' heirs. (option C)
<h3>What are "the bonds of injustice"?</h3>
First, it is important to understand the context given by the passage. President Kennedy is talking about the slaves who were freed by President Lincoln, and then he moves on to their heirs, that is, to all African Americans.
When President Kennedy mentions that those heirs are not freed from "the bonds of injustice," he means that African Americans still face social and economic oppression, that they are still not treated equally.
With the information above in mind, we can select option C as the correct answer.
Learn more about President Kennedy here:
brainly.com/question/21223104