тнєу мα∂є тнє <u><em>вιℓℓ σf яιgнтѕ</em></u>
вυт συт σf уσυя ¢нσι¢є σf ωσя∂ѕ ιт ωιℓℓ вє ¢σиѕσ∂єяє∂
нσρє ι ¢συℓ∂ нєℓρ уσυ συт!!!!!!!
Answer:
The major difference between these two systems is that in a Presidential system, the executive leader, the President, is directly voted upon by the people (Or via a body elected specifically for the purpose of electing the president, and no other purpose), and the executive leader of the Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister, is elected from the legislative branch directly. In the Presidential System, it is more difficult to enact legislation, especially in the event that the President has different beliefs than the legislative body. The President only responds to the people, the legislative branch can't really do anything to threaten the President. As a result, he can make it more difficult for the legislative body to do anything. In the Parliamentary system, if the Parliament doesn't like the Prime Minister, they can cast a vote of no confidence and replace him. This tends to make the executive leader subservient to the Parliament. Bottom line is, if you believe that government should have more checks and balances, then a Presidential system will give you that. If you believe that it should have the power to enact laws quickly, then you should go for a Parliamentary system.
I believe the answer is D.
Answer:
The correct approach is Option c.
Explanation:
- According to the individual's experience or personality, corollaries become formulated, through individual seems to have its corollary that could be altered as per the circumstances.
- It's also characterized when different individuals experience the same phenomenon in different ways.
The remaining three alternatives are not linked to the situation at hand. So, option c was its right option.
Answer and explanation:
<u>The people who would be angry about Japanese steel dumping are the American steel producers/manufacturers.</u> If Japanese steel costs much lower than American steel, that means American manufacturers will lose clients and, consequently, money. If the product is the same, if there are no differences in quality, then buyers will simply go for the cheapest one.
<u>The people who would benefit are companies and factories that need steel to make their products. Manufacturers of appliances, cars, machinery, and even construction companies </u>would greatly save money due to the low costs of such an essential material. <u>That could also benefit their clients</u>, since low costs of production can mean lower prices when the products are sold.