Answer: secession
Explanation: I just took the test and got 100
Answer: Choice D) Its high unemployment rate
==========================================================
Explanation:
Ideally you should do external research to get the answer, but luckily we can eliminate non-answers to narrow things down.
- Choice A is false because having a skilled labor force and foreign investments means that the country is diversified to withstand an economic storm. Sure there is still likely a recession, but recovery would be fairly quick if choice A was the case.
- Choice B is a similar idea. Having modern industrial policies means the workforce is agile and flexible, and in turn there's low unemployment. Ideally the environment would be an issue as well. This is why we can rule out choice B.
- Choice C can be ruled out because a high GDP is the opposite of what it means to have a slow recovery. High GDP means the country is producing a lot of goods and services, and the standard of living is expected to be high. In short, the recovery is either strong or already over when high GDP occurs.
In summary: Choices A, B, and C can be eliminated.
The only thing left is choice D. Having high unemployment is one factor that leads to slow recovery. This makes sense because people without a job aren't able to contribute to the economic output of a country.
What is the question because I know that the definition of polytheism is the belief in many God's.
Try to check google or something
The Supreme Court was affirming the point that states (not the federal government) should be in charge of the voting procedures in their states.The Supreme Court decision you're referring to, which invalidated pre-clearance conditions, was Shelby County v. Holder (2013). "Pre-clearance" meant that certain states, according to the Voting Rights Acts of 1965, had to get approval in advance from federal authorities for any changes they made to their state regulations regarding voting. That standard had been applied to several states because they had displayed discriminatory practice in their voting laws. The decision in Shelby County v. Holder held that the federal government could not keep applying that requirement on the basis of decades-old data.
I recently posted another answer on Shelby County v. Holder, which you can check out too. Read more on Brainly.com -
brainly.com/question/9069264#readmore