The skepticism about the empire of Ghana and the accounts for it is nothing weird because the majority of what is written about it is from two people from the same place, that had totally different views and interpretations on the things, and came from different culture.
Very often in the historical text, the people that wrote something have been very subjective, not objective. Thus the writings of these two Arab geographers can be very misleading, as they described what they saw with their own eyes, but also with using their own perception. That has proven numerous times to give very inaccurate depictions of a society and culture, like the depictions of the Romans for the Celts, or of the Greeks for the Scythian female warriors that they named Amazons.
There's only one point of view unfortunately, and it is always much more reliable when multiple writings are available from people from multiple different backgrounds, or the best scenario if it is writings from the people in question.
The British, who controlled India at the time, put parts of pigs and cows (holy foods in the religions of most India) and their soldiers, the Sepoy, refused to use them. They were put in irons, but their comrads rescued them and the rebellion began.
Answer:
What portion of the US population was under the age of 18 in 2010?
✔ about a quarter
The largest segment of the population in 2010 was
✔ between ages 25 and 44
Which trend does this table help illustrate?
✔ an aging population
Explanation:
I believe it was Ashoka. I'm sorry if this is wrong, but this is what I could find.