Answer:
price
Explanation:
It will be easy to provide an example to better illustrate this. Lets suppose that a patient has been diagnosed with cancer and is trying to figure which between chemotherapy or taking drugs is the best treatment. The question this cancer patient is going to ask herself is which among the two will prolong her life. Thus, survival time is the response variable. In our case, the price is the response variable because it is the determining factor of where these college students will live. Amenities somehow affect the price and thus, it will act as the response variable. Price is what we are able to measure and the location which is the students' primary interest lies in our response variable
The answer is "conflict theorists".
Conflict theories are viewpoints in sociology and social psychology that accentuate a realist understanding of history, rationalistic technique for examination, a basic position toward existing social plans, and political program of unrest or, in any event, change. Struggle hypotheses attract consideration regarding power differentials, for example, class strife, and for the most part differentiate generally prevailing belief systems.
<span> The hill was closer to heaven that the surrounding area.</span>
Answer:
What follows is a bill of indictment. Several of these items end up in the Bill of Rights. Others are addressed by the form of the government established—first by the Articles of Confederation, and ultimately by the Constitution.
The assumption of natural rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence can be summed up by the following proposition: “First comes rights, then comes government.” According to this view: (1) the rights of individuals do not originate with any government, but preexist its formation; (2) the protection of these rights is the first duty of government; and (3) even after government is formed, these rights provide a standard by which its performance is measured and, in extreme cases, its systemic failure to protect rights—or its systematic violation of rights—can justify its alteration or abolition; (4) at least some of these rights are so fundamental that they are “inalienable,” meaning they are so intimately connected to one’s nature as a human being that they cannot be transferred to another even if one consents to do so. This is powerful stuff.
At the Founding, these ideas were considered so true as to be self-evident. However, today the idea of natural rights is obscure and controversial. Oftentimes, when the idea comes up, it is deemed to be archaic. Moreover, the discussion by many of natural rights, as reflected in the Declaration’s claim that such rights “are endowed by their Creator,” leads many to characterize natural rights as religiously based rather than secular. As I explain in The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, I believe his is a mistake.
