Answer:
They used stones, tree branches, and leaves to survive the climate.
Explanation:
The climate during the early Paleolithic age were warm. But it got colder as they move closer to the ice age period. At that time, humans still haven't developed the ability to create sharp tools from metals. So they can't produce fur coats to survive the cold weather.
In order to survive the changing climate, they built a very simple shelter using the combination of stones, tree branches , and leaves. (Humans' intellect haven't developed to make a more advanced shelter during this time period_
Answer:
The answer is C
Explanation:
Workers should form unions.
The correct answer is B) distinct male and female roles existed but were opposite of the role models in North American culture.
Among the Tchambuli, Mead noted that distinct male and female roles existed but were opposite of the role models in North American culture.
In a time when women could not easily have important roles in society, Margaret Meade (1901-1978) was an American Anthropologists that dedicated part of her like to explore and study different cultures in South Asia and South Pacific regions.
Regarding the Tchambuli people, she found a different social structure that cannot be compared with any culture in the Americas. The gender roles of these people were different. The woman had the dominant role in society, not the men. Men were more emotional than women and women showed their leadership in their society. The Tchambuli lived in Papua New Guinea.
<u>Answer</u>:
C) Taney can not deny Scott citizenship because it is federal right.
<u>Explanation:
</u>
The counterclaim is the opposite view of the claim statement. The counterclaim showing the strong viewpoint of your research that you have done thorough research and even considered the other's viewpoint also. With the supporting evidence, the researcher can use the counterclaim supporting evidence. The claim never goes unsupported. The credible source could be the newspaper, websites, encyclopedia, and many more resources are there to support the claim.
There is no objective answer to this question, as both sides have arguments that support their views.
If you believe that you are bound by Hobbes' argument, it is because of tacit consent. Tacit consent means that, even though you have not explicitly agreed to follow laws, you have indicated your agreement through other means, for example, by using the public services of the government or by remaining within the limits of your country. Also, you could argue that any rational person would prefer to follow the rules of the government than to live in the state of nature. Therefore, if you are rational, your consent is assumed. Finally, you could also argue that while you did not explicitly agreed, maybe your ancestors did, which still binds you as a member of the same society.
On the other hand, if you believe that you are not bound by Hobbes' argument, you could argue that any contract that is not freely agreed upon is not valid. As the government uses force to make you act according to the law, you cannot be considered to be freely consenting. Also, you can argue that agreeing to follow some rules does not imply following <em>all</em> of the laws of the country. Finally, a common argument against Hobbes is the lack of empirical data. As we do not know if the state of nature is actually bad, or if the contract ever happened, the government cannot gain its legitimacy in that way.
