<span>Credible, because a historian student could have some idea on different topics, and then discover new information that eventually led the student to rethink their ideas. In particular, the sentence is credible because it is possible to admire several pieces in the British Museum related to Julio Ceasar.
---
Biased. The sentence, while could be absolutely written by a historical scholar, should not be included in an article, unless the article is an essay where the scholar expresses an opinion, and even then it should be justified and not simply stated as it appears here.
---
Biased. The sentence seems more probable to be said during a personal conversation of some sort, considering the personal tone of the statement, and the fact that is made considering only the speaker's viewpoint without any evidence to support the claim.
---
Credible. While the sentence sure is not the best from an academic viewpoint, in a blog it is not usual to use a form of expression that is less codified than what is used in scholars papers. Moreover, it is credible that a historical blogger could want to engage its readers in that way, thus making the statement credible.</span>
The answer is A, too much power in the central government.
America
had just experienced the rule of a tyrannical leader. They were afraid
that if they gave the central government too much power, then they would
end up going through the same problems again. So they ended up giving
too much power to the states, and too little to the central government.
Later on they had to change the rule because nothing was working out
well. They owed other countries money and they figured that something
had to change.
Answer:
They all informed the people about their intentions as leader
Explanation:
This is what I put :)
