Answer:
While both New England and Chesapeake were settled by people of English origin both communities gradually developed on a different scale, not only because of their different geography and basic economics but also because of the kind of people who settled there.
Explanation:
New England was mostly settled by a group of families who came with young children to start a new life. Their aim was to find a safe place to raise their families, away from the religious persecution of Europe.
On the other hand, Chesapeake consisted mostly of single men and people who were seeking a way to make a fortune.
New England also did not offer the same agriculture opportunities. As large-scale farming was difficult, most people relied on timber, fishing and other such means to earn a source of income.
Chesapeake was a rich agriculture land where rice and tobacco could be grown in abundance.
By the mid-1600s, news of large parts of abundant land in the New World had reached England and many young men were trying to make a new life.
By the 1700s, both areas had become thriving communities.
All this gradually gave rise to a very difficult culture in both communities.
Answer: Hard answer but heres the explanation
Explanation:
They were similarly caused by nationalism, imperialism, alliances, and militarism. Both wars saw countries trying to upset the power balance in Europe for their own gain.
The answer for your question is one that's "A)"
In a study by Briol and Petty, participants were exposed to strong or weak arguments on a topic while either shaking their heads or nodding their heads. A person would be more persuaded if they were shaking their head while listening to a flimsy argument.
Not all fallacious are inherently weak arguments. Because it is unfounded, an argument may be poor. Solving a mathematical equation is a classic example; if you made a mistake in the proof, it would not be regarded as "weak argument," just invalid. Because you only need to check for logical mistakes throughout the deductive process, invalid arguments are frequently simpler to identify.
A weak argument can't be flawed if it is based on untrue premises. For instance, "Video game playing encourages violent behaviour. This person spends a lot of time playing video games, so violence is probably in their future. The weak argument that playing video games is associated with violence is false, thus even though the argument is compelling, it is still flawed.
Learn more about weak argument here
brainly.com/question/13576121
#SPJ4
Answer:
Not at all you can still keep on asking
