In a civil court case, the plaintiff is the person <span> who brings a </span>suit<span> or some other legal action against another, the defendant in this </span>case<span> in </span><span>court</span>
Answer:
A. Uruk
Explanation:
At one point in time (around 2900 BC), Uruk was regarded as the Largest City in the world. This city was located near Euphrates River, which made it easy for the agricultural sector in the city to flourish.
The river also enable the people in the city to freely travel to distribute various types of goods to other territory. This made the city able to accumulate a lot of wealth. At the peak of its power, this city had around 80,000 population (which a lot for early societies in that era)
Sara experienced no fear in response to the buzzing sound. At that time the sound of the buzzing bee was most clearly a(n): <u>neutral stimulus</u>.
<u>Explanation</u>:
Psychology says neutral stimulus is a kind of stimulus which never produces a response initially other than focusing attention. The neutral stimulus gets changed to a conditioned stimulus, when it combines together with an unconditioned stimulus. Neutral stimulus won’t trigger the response.
In the above scenario, Sara expressed no fear towards the bee. She was simply observing the buzzing sound. This explains that the sound is neutral stimulus and that doesn’t make any reaction in Sara.
It depends on what you are weighing. If it is water, 1 gram = 1 milliliter.
Answer:
In Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court <u><em>ruled that bans on dangerous speech were constitutional.</em></u>
Explanation:
In the 1919 Supreme Court case of Schenck v. the United States, the court deemed the actions of Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer as unconstitutional. It deemed them criminals for trying to obstruct the government's drafting of men for war and that it is an act against the security of the nation.
This case revolves around the claim that the obstruction of Schenck and Baer's free speech was unconstitutional and they have the right to express their opinions. But the court insisted that since the leaflets they distributed were against national security, the First Amendment doesn't apply to them.
Thus, the correct answer is the second option.
