Heritage, ownership
Explain…
Answer: it follows events in his life closely miranda responded to Hamilton's controversy Hamilton imforms the present
Explanation:
Answer:
I think a Forearm Pass
Explanation:
In most cases this would be the easiest way to recieve the ball and counter attack therefor helping to score a point.
(Sorry if that is wrong, I am just going by what I know.)
We are expected to state the meaning of the underlined word. The underlined word is <u>debacle</u> and it means
To state the meaning of a chose word, it is important that we closely study the context wherein it was stated.
Since it was a tycoon that occurred, it gives the idea that something terrible causing great distress had happened.
This gives us the idea that the option that is nearest in meaning to the underlined word is, "a great disaster."
Learn more here:
brainly.com/question/991584
Answer:
I would say the correct answer is B. To give the English king a graceful way out of what could be an awkward situation.
Explanation:
The emperor's letter is a perfect example of a well-balanced political message. <u>He clearly states his political position while still paying due respect to his counterpart.</u> Translated to modern, everyday English, this passage would mean: "Your request is unreasonable and goes against all principles and rules of my great empire; still, I will be gracious enough to assume that you meant no offence." This way, <u>the emperor turns down a request without making an enemy</u>.
True, the emperor refuses King George's request to intensify trade connections between the two countries. But he doesn't go so far as to warn the English king of anything. His tone remains polite throughout the letter. Therefore, A) isn't correct.
On the other hand, C) isn't correct because Qian Long presents his current political stance and the politics of his empire as definite and immutable. Therefore, there is no room for change - not now, not ever.
Finally, D) isn't correct because the emperor knows very well that an ambassador always speaks on behalf of his sovereign. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible that a political envoy would take liberty to speak on his own terms.