1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
vitfil [10]
3 years ago
11

1. What was the significance of interchangeable parts?

History
2 answers:
jasenka [17]3 years ago
5 0
I guess the answer is it made farming less profitable
algol133 years ago
3 0
Well....I would ASSUME that it's B. I'm just guessing here of course.
You might be interested in
Why was the 13 Amendment needed after the Emancipation Proclamation?
GuDViN [60]

The 13th Amendment and the Emancipation Proclamation As president, Abraham Lincoln needed to spare the country from aggregate division. He expected to spare the union, and in the meantime, fulfill the states' requirements and requests.

7 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which schools today would compare to Puritan grammar schools?
const2013 [10]

High schools today would compare to Puritan grammar schools

Answer: Option C

<u>Explanation: </u>

Grammar School which is also known as Latin school and is equivalent to high schools of today. Children of upper classes used to pursue their higher education either by attending Latin grammar schools or secondary schools.  

In these schools, they were taught Greek and Latin and the classics which helped them to prepare for the college education. One of the oldest Latin schools in U.S. is Boston Latin school founded in the year 1635 and is presently operating in the country.

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which of the following correctly states a teaching of Islam?
fgiga [73]

Explanation:

<h2>A. Each person is responsible for his or her own actions </h2>
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Explain how a factory owner would view capitalism
xenn [34]

Answer:

Economic theorizing

utilizes, on the one hand, mathematical techniques and, on the other, thought

experiments, parables, or stories. Progress may stagnate for various reasons.

Sometimes we are held back for lack of the technique needed to turn our stories

into the raw material for effective scientific work. At other times, we are

short of good stories to inject meaning into (and perhaps even to draw a moral

from) our models. One can strive for intellectual coherence in economics either

by attempting to fit all aspects of the subject into one overarching

mathematical structure or by trying to weave its best stories into one grand

epic.

This paper attempts to revive an old

parable, Adam Smith’s theory of manufacturing production, which has been

shunted aside and neglected because it has not fitted into the formal structure

of either neoclassical or neo-Ricardian theory. The paper attempts to persuade

not by formal demonstrations (at this stage) but by suggesting that the parable

can illuminate many and diverse problems and thus become the red thread in a

theoretical tapestry of almost epic proportions.

The subject may be approached from either

a theoretical or a historical angle. Regarding the theoretical starting-point,

it is possible to be brief since the familiar litany of complaints about the

neoclassical constant-returns production function hardly bears repeating. The

one point about it that is germane here is that it does not describe production

as a process, i.e., as an ordered sequence of operations. It is more like a

recipe for bouillabaisse where all the ingredients are dumped in a pot, (K, L),

heated up, f(·), and the output, X, is ready. This abstraction

from the sequencing of tasks, it will be suggested, is largely responsible for

the well-known fact that neoclassical production theory gives us no [204] clue

to how production is actually organized. Specifically, it does not help us

explain (1) why, since the industrial revolution, manufacturing is normally

conducted in factories with a sizeable workforce concentrated to one workplace,

or (2) why factories relatively seldom house more than one firm, or (3) why

manufacturing firms are “capitalistic” in the sense that capital

hires labor rather than vice versa.

5 0
2 years ago
The British
Murljashka [212]

Answer:

d.

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • During his election campaign in 1988, George H.W. Bush promised not to
    9·1 answer
  • Which statement about the Nez Perce people is true?
    10·2 answers
  • HEEEELP PLEASE I WANNA HAVE A GOOD JOB IN THE FUTURE
    13·2 answers
  • The French set up forts for the purpose of
    12·1 answer
  • ENGLISH**** (oops)
    5·1 answer
  • The University of Bologna was renowned for the study of:<br><br> art<br> law<br> medicine
    13·1 answer
  • HELP FAST I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME LEFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BRAILIEST!!!!
    14·1 answer
  • What is Jared Diamonds explanation for why the spanish had advanced to steel swords while incas were still making tools and weap
    13·1 answer
  • Please help,
    12·1 answer
  • Where did most Quakers live?
    15·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!