Answer:
Explanation:
Company increases the input by 20%
increase in output in percentage terms
= [(1500 - 1000) / 1000 ] x 100
= 50 %
So percentage increase in output is more than percentage increase in input
hence there is increasing return to scale at this product.
In case of increasing return to scale , cost of production per unit decreases .
There is increasing efficiency in production .
Answer:
The most traumatic era in the entire history of Roman Catholicism, some have argued, was the period from the middle of the 14th century to the middle of the 16th. This was the time when Protestantism, through its definitive break with Roman Catholicism, arose to take its place on the Christian map. It was also the period during which the Roman Catholic Church, as an entity distinct from other “branches” of Christendom, even of Western Christendom, came into being.
Explanation:
Hope this helps :3
The british got money from the colonists from the time period of the stamp act (1764) this act was when parliament put tax on any printed materials to get money for military costs.
hoped that helped!!
Answer:
No, the correct answer is Patrick Henry. He was opposed a strong government and ratifying the Constitution
Explanation:
Patrick Henry is known for being a steadfast patriot opposed to a strong centralized government.
<span>1876 Supreme Court case ruled against any individual right to bear armsSecond Amendment guaranteed only states' rights to maintain militiasState governments could regulate guns however they saw fit<span>Presser v. Illinois affirmed Cruikshank ruling, further clarified that Second Amendment rights had not been "incorporated"—that is, they were not binding on the states</span></span>
Until quite recently, the answer to that question was pretty simple—the Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment was established in just a few cases. The first of these was United States v. Cruikshank. You can read more about this case here, but the short version is that in 1876 the Court ruled that the Second Amendment served only to protect the states against the federal government. Because the states in 1787 were worried that a too-powerful federal government might trample their rights, the Court said, the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution guaranteeing their right to maintain militias. The Second Amendment did not, in this interpretation, provide any individual right to keep and bear arms; it only guaranteed a state's right to maintain a militia. Moreover, since these militias were to be "well regulated," and since the Second Amendment was aimed only at the threat posed by the federal government, state governments were—according to this ruling—free to regulate guns in any manner they saw fit.
