Answer:
It is nether.
Explanation:
because I looked it up on and had others sites too.
Answer:
Un conflicto es una situación en la que dos o más partes tienen intereses contrapuestos, los cuales no se complementan entre sí sino que son antagónicos en su realización. Por lo tanto, cada una de las partes utiliza métodos y se adhieren a valores que en la percepción de las partes son irreconciliables y por tanto chocan.
Ahora bien, el conflicto como tal puede ser el motor para una reconvención de relaciones injustas o negativas. Ello pues las partes (donde generalmente una es la injusta y la otra la que sufre la injusticia) manifiestan sus posiciones en forma de choque, buscando llegar a una solución favorable para ambas, con lo cual suelen ceder en sus pretensiones en la medida que la otra parte también lo haga. Así, muchas veces el conflicto permite destrabar una situación conflictiva, acercando las posiciones de las partes y llegando a un punto de acuerdo.
Because the south depended on slavery for their economy and the north was more industrialized so they had no need for slaves so they saw slavery as something bad
1. "Congress could not provide for a national defense" was the one main weakness <span>of the articles of confederation. The correct option among all the options given is the first option.
2. No entity </span>was given power by the articles of confederation. The correct option among all the options given is the fourth option.
3. The founding fathers thought it necessary to create the articles of confederation to establish a legal basis for a permanent government of the new United States. The correct option is the fourth option.
Answer:
The main point here on the appeal would be the fact that the Sherrods decided to stay silent on the last offer made by the Kidds to settle the situation, and rather decided to go ahead and look for a mandatory arbitration. When the Sherrods did that, the Kidds might have understood that they were not accepting their offer for 34.000 dollars and preffered to settle for the result of the mandatory arbitration, which established the price at 25.000 dollars.
Another point is that there was a big time lapse between the last offer made by the Kidds to settle with the Sherrods and their communicating that they would go for that final settlement offer, especially after the mandatory arbitration had already established a new price. This time lapse should also be taken in favor of the Kidds in their appeal
Finally, the matter should have ended when the final decision for the arbitration was given
So it should be expected that on appeal the decision reached in the mandatory arbritration be upheld, instead of the new sum which was initially assumed not accepted by the Sherrods when they went through with the arbitration.
