None of these conclusions is valid.
- The first one implies that people either think that their employer should cover part of the health insurance costs (as said in the original sentence), or they think that the employer should pay 100%. This is not correct because there are other possible opinions people can have, like thinking that the employer shouldn't pay for anything, for example.
- The second conclusion is invalid for the same reason: it implies that people can only either think that the employer should pay a large part, or that the employer shouldn't pay anything. It is not considering other options.
- The third conclusion does not work either because it is referring to what people think about <em>the amount </em>of the costs themselves, whereas the original topic was <em>how</em> they are paid for.
The Embargo Act was a series of law passed in the Congress during the second term of Thomas Jefferson. This was established because the British warship Leopard attacked American warship Chesapeake. Britain did not allowed their trade partners to trade with France. US was neutral during the Napoleonic wars.
This can be interpreted two ways:
"Rule of all" can be interpreted as "all have rule", or a direct-democracy, in which every citizen has a voice of the government.
"Rule of all" can also be interpreted as "having rule over all", or monarchy (or totalitarian), in which one or a few have rule over all the subjects in their territories.
~
True. This it true because it receives all of the imports, allowing them to have all the materials they need for production. After producing the goods they can then export them back out
Answer:option A is the correct answer
a. )Over half of U.S. adults over the age of 65 were Internet users.