Um, there are no answers?
All of these are defensible. Of course debt rises in war, and decreasing taxes will benefit an economy where taxes are no longer needed (post-scarcity.) Political and geographical boundaries are outmoded and a world without them is not only possible but existed for much of early human civilization. As for the government, a government would run more efficiently when everyone is in basic agreement with what to do and how.
I would question your teacher on this. Anyone can defend these perspectives...
What are the answer choices?
Answer:
Yes, answer below!
Explanation:
Yes, he had done several actions against the constitution and overall led to the capital being attacked. He was a major leader and role model, some people would believe whatever he said; and sometimes he said some terrible things. Another topic is how he built part of a wall wasting our governments money just to keep people out when we should be making the regulations larger so we are able to let immigrants come in regulated amounts safely.
If you want to add more or not use it is just fine! It is my personal opinion, but it seems fair.
The answer is definitely D.
MIT defines calculus as the study of change, usually in motion.
