A. Region D
Explanation:
The European countries were well known for conquering countries and establishing colonies all over the world, but they made an exception in one, that being China. Instead of make China a colony, the European countries, usually in bad relations, worked together to take over parts of it, as it was in their best interest.
It may seem unthinkable nowadays for someone to divide China in spheres of interest, but back in the 19th and early 0th century, the country was in terrible condition, so it was easy target for the Europeans. The European interest was mainly economic, so instead of going after all of the Chinese territory, the Europeans captured only the Chinese coastline. This was tactically excellent move, as China was still producing a lot, but it had to export the goods through the sea, and with the Europeans controlling the coastline, the Chinese had to sell everything to them for minimum compensation, while the Europeans were making huge profits.
<span>The correct answer should be A. The issues they addressed were much too vague. They were things that didn't really mean much like accusing him of having speeches to the people that the congress was run by bad men or things like that that aren't really prohibitted and many presidents have done them.</span>
Not completely sure but i would say it was a theocracy <span />
Explanation:
What developing countries had not realized earlier that apart from investing in college educated worker ,they also need to invest on demand for rise in the work force for skilled workers. College education alone will not be sufficient for greater positive development impact of the workers. Right kind of skill relevant in the industries must be inculcated in them for positive development impact. Off late this realization has been made, developing countries are working on it.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although the question does not have any statements or options, we can say that the Supreme Court's rationale for the decision in McDonald v Chicago was that the Court reversed the decision made by the 7th. Circuit, explaining that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution supports the right including in the 2nd Amendment to have weapons for the self-protection of the citizen in all the states of the Union. So yes, the 2nd. Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to the states. The case McDonald v Chicago was decided on June 18, 2010.
