I believe the answer is: False
Mandatory language is actually advisable to be used in this situation.
Using mandatory language would set a clear limitation that make the consumers understand the magnitude of the danger. This would make them much more likely to follow the written warning.
In each case naturally the intention for the first action existed, or it would not have been carried out. It is doubtful in the extreme that the initiators of those actions foresaw the full consequences of those actions, especially as the full scale of the consequences did not become apparent for hundreds of years.
<span>So in all three cases the answer must be that the consequences were not intentional.</span>
Answer:
A) feudal arrangements.
Explanation:
After the fall of the Roman Empire, many groups of Germanic peoples would establish in the Roman territory. Their contact with the roman promoted many changes in the economy and society of the germanic peoples. With these changes, an aristocratic begins to develop, and an emergent monarchy that maintains itself through the work of peasants.<u> The arrangement between the Lord and the peasant was mutual and based on the favor exchange: the peasant would work on the Lord fields and will give a piece to him.</u>
<span>Deregulation and Tax cuts or Tax rebates are the two ways where an economy stabilized with the production point. Deregulation is the relaxing of rules and regulations imposed on an industry or business. Tax cuts and tax rebates are designed to put more money back into the pockets of consumers. Ideally, these consumers spend a portion of that money at various businesses, which increases the businesses' revenues, production, cash flows and profits.</span>
