Pardon? I don’t understand the question.
I believe the answer is: b. a sense of urgency, which causes a person to take action.
This is the basic difference between needs and wants. When a need is unfulfilled, people would experience a certain level of threat to their survival , which is why it create a sense of urgency to fulfill. Examples of needs are food. drinks, and shelter.
The grant available to third- or fourth-year college students majoring in physical, life, or computer sciences is the SMART Grant.
Two grant programs based on need were created by The Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 for complementing the <em>Federal Pell Grant Program</em>:
- The first is called ACG (Academic Competitiveness Grants). Undergraduates from first and second year who fulfilled a rigurous high school curriculum can be awarded with it.
- The second is called SMART (National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grants). Undergraduates from third, fourth and fifth year majoring in technical fields, critical foreign languages, or who are part of a qualifying liberal arts program can be awarded with it.
I think it is 25℅ for multiple reason
The U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Scott lived in Wisconsin with his master, Dr. John Emerson, for several years before returning to Missouri, a slave state. In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master’s widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision. Scott appealed the decision, and as his new master, J.F.A. Sanford, was a resident of New York, a federal court decided to hear the case on the basis of the diversity of state citizenship represented. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was divided along slavery and antislavery lines; although the Southern justices had a majority.
During the trial, the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Southern majority responded by ruling on March 6, 1857, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Three of the Southern justices also held that African Americans who were slaves or whose ancestors were slaves were not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. These rulings all confirmed that, in the view of the nation’s highest court, under no condition did Dred Scott have the legal right to request his freedom. The Supreme Court’s verdict further inflamed the irrepressible differences in America over the issue of slavery, which in 1861 erupted with the outbreak of the American Civil War.
