Answer:
The correct answer is that the school of social thought that insist on social structures is Anthropology.
Explanation:
Anthropology is the science that study human behavior and their culture in societies in the past and future.
Unfortunately, you did not provide the texts to which the question refers, which makes it impossible for the answer to provide textual evidence. However, I will try to help you in the best possible way.
Answer and Explanation:
How is it possible that the Northern European Planice attracted the first settlers? The answer to this question can be reduced in two words: soil and climate. This is because the colonizers needed to establish themselves in a region where agriculture was possible, the Northern European Planice being a perfect place for this, since the region has an average temperature of 15 ºC being perfect for seasonal agricultural crops. In addition, the region has fertile soil and access to water, making it completely possible to establish agricultural practices on site.
Answer:
Frontal and parietal lobes us the correct answer.
Explanation:
Stephen shapin is an “American historian” and a socialist of science. Scholarly on the sociology of scientific knowledge
Explanation:
He is a historian of science. Being a lecturer in Edinburgh University, he has written broadly in the history and sociology of science. He considers that scientists have to choose choices in their career ethically and it offers the basis for scientific credibility.
He contributed to London review magazine. As per his theory, he proclaims that science is based on trust, truth and morality.
Answer:
Elections affect the Supreme Court like this:
When a president is elected in the US, they are most likely to be of one political party or another. The president also appoints a Supreme Court Justice. If a president is considering appointing a judge, they will probably appoint someone who shares their views, so as to sway matters that get taken to the Supreme Court in their favor.
Explanation:
Example, because I'm not sure I explained correctly: If a president is more left-leaning, they can (and probably will) appoint a left-leaning judge, so that they will judge matters as they or their political party would judge them. Appointing a judge with whom you disagree with isn't a strategic idea, because the president's ideals may be very different from a right-leaning judge. t-leaning, they can (and probably will) appoint a left-leaning judge, so that they will judge matters as they or their political party would judge them. Appointing a judge with whom you disagree isn't a strategic idea, because the president's ideals may be very different from a right-leaning judge.
