The argument in favor of US economic aid to other nations is invalid because the premises do not relate to the conclusion.
An argument is valid when all the premises are true and build a true conclusion.
According to the above, the argument presented has the following premises:
- Foreign economic aid to other countries is a good investment for the United States.
- It comprises only one percent of the entire federal budget, about $ 20 billion.
And the conclusion it presents is:
- Returns untold amounts in increased sales of American goods and services.
According to the above, the argument is a fallacy because the premises are not related to the conclusion because:
An investment is an economic contribution to receive a later profit, in this case, the United States is investing, and those who are receiving the profit are private US companies. Furthermore, no argument is presented that relates the increase in sales of goods and services with this investment.
Learn more in: brainly.com/question/2645376
Sorry I don’t know that answer
Answer:
The centralization of control in Spain
Explanation:
The dynastic shift in Spain, from the Habsburg to the Bourbons, brought a deep transformation of the empire's administration. The Bourbons kings wanted to centralize power, which left many Creoles out of their local governments and army. They could hold lands and properties, but they were excluded from the institutions. This was one of the main causes of the revolutions.
