Answer:
This is analogous to a <em><u>commons dilemma</u></em> game
Explanation:
A game of commons dilemma is used to teach morals and ethics for children. They are introduced to a problem that will depend on their moral conduct to find a better answer for it. When applied in a social community, a commons dilemma game can promote the same result, because will inflict the idea of respect, altruism, otherness and ethical conduct in the individual. In general, these games use the idea "to think about the other, not only on yourself."
Answer:
1) the boston tea party was were the government was over taxing the tea so the colonists a selective group came and snuck on the governments boat and nocked all tea bags off into the water.
2) the cause of the boston tea party was due to the overtaxing of tea that the governemnt was pushing for the colonists to tax more money for tea.
3) the effects of the boston tea party was it left the government in dept because the tea the governemnt had to pay for but they got thrown off the ship so lots of money gone.
4) the boston tea party was important because it left the governemnt in dept and in the timeline of events we have to add the governments mone loss.
Explanation: thats all I got but i hope it helps :)
Answer:
Some historians believe Alexander killed his general in a fit of drunkenness—a persistent problem that plagued him through much of his life. Alexander struggled to capture Sogdia, a region of the Persian Empire that remained loyal to Bessus
Explanation:
Answer:
WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SLAVERY ANYWAYS
Explanation:
The delegates compromised. Each slave would count as three-fifths of a person. ... A special committee worked out another compromise: Congress would have the power to ban the slave trade, but not until 1800. The convention voted to extend the date to 1808.
Spencer trusted that exclusive the fittest society would get by after some time, prompting general up reviewing of the world overall. Herbert Spencer was a noteworthy figure in the scholarly existence of the Victorian time. He was one of the vital advocates of developmental hypothesis in the mid nineteenth century, and his notoriety at the time matched that of Charles Darwin.