Answer:
valid.
Explanation:
Valid is something effective, legally binding or able to withstand objection.
In deductive reasoning, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion. Valid arguments must be clearly expressed by means of sentences called well-formed formulas. The validity of an argument can be tested, proved or disproved, and depends on its logical form.
An argument is a set of statements expressing the premises and an evidence-based conclusion.
Answer:
The Temple was looted and then destroyed in 586/587 BCE at the hands of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II, who also deported the Jews to Babylon. The destruction of the temple and the deportation were seen as fulfillments of prophecy and strengthened Judaic religious beliefs.
Explanation:
Inside this space rested the Ark of the Covenant, an ornate wooden box overlaid with gold. This was the most sacred relic in ancient Israelite religion. Inside of the Ark the Israelites kept the symbol of their covenant with Yahweh, the two tablets of the Ten Commandments, along with a pot of manna and Aaron's staff.
Answer:
The correct answer is : The onset of labeling theory
Explanation:
People give a lot of labels based on what we think they are which is based on what society tells us is important. The labels given to a person determines how we interact with him or her and this includes what we believe is deviant. This theory focuses on society's reaction to deviant behavior. Neil's friend shows this kind of reaction.
I believe the answer to the question is awareness. This is the stage where Tobias realizes that Rachel keeps putting his toothbrush on the cabinet and it finally erupts him.
Thank you for your question. Please don't hesitate to ask in Brainly your queries.
In the second time ever, the Court used<span> its power of </span>judicial review<span> to rule an act of Congress (the Missouri Compromise) unconstitutional. ... Northerners charged that after Chief Justice Taney had shown that </span>Scott<span>, as a Negro, had no right to bring a case into a federal court, he should have ended his decision.</span>
