Answer:
c it shows that the amount grew trumendously increased causing prices to rise and most only plantation owners sold their crops because poor people had little to eat for themselves
<span>Jarod is using participant obervation as party of his study on the homeless. After spending six weeks as a direct participant in a homeless community, he will better be able formulate the information he acquired while participating in the same activities that the homeless do. The answer is not content analysis or secondary analysis because Jarod is using first hand experience, and it is not representative sampling because Jarod is a direct participant.</span>
For the answer to the questions above, I think the most significant thing is probably manpower. The Romans had the pool of hundreds of thousands of small farmers to draw upon. The Carthaginians used mainly mercenaries and federate.<span>The Roman Govt also seems to have taken the war more seriously, as a 'total war', and mobilized all their resources earlier and more effectively. Combined with their larger manpower this meant they were able to absorb defeats more easily and continue fighting. I have read a book which used the analogy of a disciplined roman 'communist' society fighting a disinterested Carthaginian 'capitalist' society. Romans have a strong government system which is so organized and amazing how they developed that advance system that time
</span>I hope my answer helped you.
My best guess is Convergence or Texture Gradient
This is because of social standings and power struggles. Social class alludes to a gathering of individuals with comparative levels of riches, impact, and status. Sociologists regularly utilize three strategies to decide social class: The target technique measures and breaks down "hard" actualities. The subjective strategy solicits individuals what they think of themselves.
