The answer is argument. :)
Answer:Yes,It is true that pollution is the price for progress
Explanation:The assertion that pollution is the price for progress is valid.
1. Progress in this regards simply means development or improvement either on the environment or a particular thing.
2. It is the people that pays the price
The moral of this assertion is that for any development to take place,the people must pay the price,this may be through inconveniences,land pollution e.t.c
1. FDR, became the 32nd president of the United States in march 4, 1933
The results of the electoral was a Win.
Despite poor economic conditions due to the Great Depression, Hoover faced little opposition at the 1932 Republican National Convention. ... Roosevelt united the party around him, campaigning on the failures of the Hoover administration. He promised recovery with a "New Deal" for the American people.
2. He promised recovery of the economy with a "New Deal" for the American people.
3. FDR's goals for the new deals are called the "3 Rs": relief for the unemployed and poor, recovery of the economy back to normal levels, and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.
4. The Federal Art Project (1935–1943) was a New Deal program to fund the visual ... Works Progress Administration (WPA) Art. Dates / Origin Date Created: 1936 ... Manuel G. Silberger Lithograph 1936 Federal Art Project, Works Progress ... Born in Russia in 1905, he was raised on Manhattan s East Side and in Brooklyn.
Answer:
<u>a) believed a centralized government posed a major threat to individual rights</u>
Explanation:
<u>Anti-Federalism:</u> The term "Anti-Federalism" is described as a specific movement in the late 18th century that opposed or was against the creation of a much stronger "U.S. federal government" and which was against the ratification associated with the 1787 constitution later on.
<u>The "Anti- Federalists"</u> were signified as people who claimed that the given constitution has given the "central government" plenty of powers, & in the absence of a "Bill of Rights" the people living around would be considered as being at risk of oppression.
<u>In the given question, option-a is correct.</u>
Answer:
I dont really know, I am sorry, but I am going to ask my teacher
