The argument in favor of US economic aid to other nations is invalid because the premises do not relate to the conclusion.
An argument is valid when all the premises are true and build a true conclusion.
According to the above, the argument presented has the following premises:
- Foreign economic aid to other countries is a good investment for the United States.
- It comprises only one percent of the entire federal budget, about $ 20 billion.
And the conclusion it presents is:
- Returns untold amounts in increased sales of American goods and services.
According to the above, the argument is a fallacy because the premises are not related to the conclusion because:
An investment is an economic contribution to receive a later profit, in this case, the United States is investing, and those who are receiving the profit are private US companies. Furthermore, no argument is presented that relates the increase in sales of goods and services with this investment.
Learn more in: brainly.com/question/2645376
Answer:
с. ensure the safety of products through regulation
Explanation:
In the U.S. free enterprise system, one of the primary roles of the government is to "ensure the safety of products through regulation."
The statement above is correct because, in free enterprise, the United States government have the following responsibilities to carry out:
1. To subsidize essential commodities
2. To provide a conducive environment in which business thrives
3. To carry out appropriate regulations such as safety production or use of the products by consumers.
Hence, in this case, the correct answer is "ensure the safety of products through regulation."
Answer: False
Explanation: I'm not the expert on this, but I know that Caliphs are regarded as monarchs that are the <em>sucessors</em> to Muhammad, so one would assume he wouldn't have any sucessors while he was still alive.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options provided, we can say the following.
The purpose of Henry Essex Edgeworth's writing about the execution of Louis XVI was to document the event of the execution and that is why he accompanied King Louis XVI during the two hours previous the moment of his execution.
Henry Essex Edgeworth (1745-1807) was an Irish priest, a Catholic one, who was the confessor of the last King of France, Louis XVI.
The French National Convention had ordered on January 20, 1793, the execution of the King of France. So one day after the order, Henry Essex Edgeworth, the Irish priest decided to witness the execution and documented his observations.
Answer:
The radical republicans plan.
Explanation:
The radical reconstruction plan was the most objectionable to southern states because they have slaves for a very long time and sudden removal of slavery from their society make them disagreeable with this radical plan of the government after the civil war. Due to their disagreeable behavior, the radical reconstruction plan execution is harder to accomplished and takes more time for its completion.
