The economic value of having colonies in the first place was for 3 main reasons
1) attain cheap labour from the native peoples
2) acquire cheap raw materials to bring to the homeland (Europe)
3) open up new markets to trade with
the first two were vital in Britains industrial revolution. Without cheap raw materials, and cheap labourers, the factories and refineries in Britain would have costed far more to maintain and keep supplied. This, in turn, would have slowed down production considerably. There is no doubt in my mind that the industrial revolution would still have taken place in Britain with or without the colonies, but WITH the colonies the process was sped up considerably.
Overall, cheap labour and raw materials attained through Britains colonial interests sped up the industrialisation of the UK.
It’s c is the right answer
<span>The Great was retained because it <span>merged proposals from large states and small states about congressional
apportionment. Eventually, the main contribution was in defining the
apportionment of the senate, and thus retaining a federal character in the constitution.
It was proposed that the proportion of suffrage in the 1st. branch [house]
should depend on the respective numbers of free people. It added that for the second branch or
Senate, each State should have no more than one vote. Though this plan failed it was finally
resolved and an amended version of this plan was included. Benjamin Franklin made modifications so that
each state big or small was represented in the senate. The Three-Fifths Compromise was no longer
retained because it focused whether or not to include slaves in the total population
count and victory in the Civil War ended slavery making it null.</span></span>
B. Marie Curie....
because it is simply stated fact and not something that could have been exaggerated or made up, like the other 3 answers.
Can you be more specific and add more context? This has happened plenty of times across human history.
