3) South Sudan
5)Egypt
6)Zaire
7)Kenya
8)Congo
2) South Africa
4)Nigeria
Hope this helped :)
Answer:
They believed that multiple personality disorder became a very strong element of pop culture which could cause dishonest psychiatrists to issue this diagnosis just to make money.
Explanation:
The diagnosis of multiple personality disorder has become very popular in pop culture, being frequently featured in films and books with a large audience. However, the diagnosis of this disorder is very difficult to make, and often it is not even possible to detect it, however Spanos and other psychiatrists believed that the popularity of this disorder could encourage dishonest psychiatrists to diagnose patients with it, in order to making money through flawed treatments and the need for attention.
Answer: D) "Since horses were not introduced to the Americas until Columbus, the Aztecs and Incas did not use horses or advanced weapons, while the Afro-Eurasians had highly developed cavalries and weaponry."
The answer is not A because Afro-Eurasia was composed of giant empires and governments, not small ones. The answer is not B because slavery was acceptable in the Incan and Aztec empires <u>as well as</u> in the Afro-Eurasia. Finally, it can't be C because in Afro-Eurasian governments, <u>only a few</u> were centered on religious beliefs, not all.
Answer:
yes
Explanation:
good citizens should keep their country clean
among other things
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.
