First of all, a <em>supply curve</em> is a chart in Economy that shows us the relation between Price and Quantity of a certain good or service. Several factors may cause this curve to shift to the left or right, e.g.: An increase of customers' purchase power, the decrease of the need for a certain product by the population, and so on...
a. Resource prices rise is another example, and would cause the supply curve to shift to the left. As with it, the final price of the products that depend on this given resource for their production, would rise, hence causing their buyers to purchase fewer quantities of them.
b. If a quota is placed on a good, it would also cause this good's final price to rise, hence causing the consumers to buy less, hence shifting the curve to the left as well.
<em>Note: </em>Of course, these are assuming that the goods in question are <em>non-essential </em>goods. That is, people may choose to buy less of them. In case of essential goods (like toilet paper, or electric power for example), people would still consume it regardless of changes in price! And in that case, the curve would stay still, or even shift slightly to the right, upon a price rise.
Answer:
a) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that has happened only after the condition already existed.
Explanation:
A senator, near the end of his first six-year term and running for reelection, made the claim: "Citizens of our state are thriving. While national unemployment levels have remained high, our state unemployment rate has been at astonishingly low levels for eleven years running. Clearly, everyone in our state has benefitted from the economical packages I have introduced during my time in the Senate. Therefore, grateful citizens of our state ought to vote for my second term."
This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism? It takes a condition to be the effect of something that has happened only after the condition already existed.The senator's argument says that the condition which is low unemployment in the state is the effect of his economic packages, but the condition existed before he ever had the chance to introduce those packages. That is the major flaw of this argument.
In the year 1789, NY became the 1st national capital of the United States under the new United States Constitution.
Answer:
No, there is something missing
Explanation:
Actually, Right to freedom of Religion does so
Hope it helps you
