I don’t know why it was so successful at that
Answer:
CVBZ,MXCCVNNMVBZMXVBZXMVB,XMVB,ZXMCVBZ,XCVB,ZXMCVB,MZXVBXBNCVXNBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Explanation:
They believed that a strong national government would cause the same problems the strong central leaders of England did. They didn't want a small tight knit group receiving all or most of the power. They didn't want to states to lose power so most of the power was given to them. A strong national government was viewed as dangerous
The correct answer is no.
Alisha was under no obligation to help Timmy, <em>there is no such thing like</em> <em>duty to rescue.</em> There is no legal requirement in the United States to help and rescue someone who is in danger. Even in extreme situation, when a person sees a person falling into a river for example, the witness of the situation is no obliged to assist with help.
There are some cases with some important exceptions: if the defendant created the peril he is obliged to come to the plaintiff's aid, if the defendant started to rescue the plaintiff, he must continue to do so, if the defendant is in a special relationship with the plaintiff ( teacher-student, worker-employer), he is under duty to rescue him.
Alisha was under no duty to inform Timmy's parents of the danger facing him <em>but she should have done it nevertheless.</em> She should at least have phoned them if she didn't have the time to stop by. She knew the boy well and she should have cared more. The need to help the boy should have come from her moral guidance and not as a sense of duty to be performed.
These and other Hindu texts classified the society in principle into four varnas: Brahmins: priests, scholars and teachers. Kshatriyas: rulers, warriors and administrators. Vaishyas: agriculturalists and merchants. Shudras: laborers and service providers.