The correct answer is C. <span>by buying it from France.</span>
The event is known as the Luisiana Purchase and took place in 1803. The land was bought by the U.S. for US $15 million
The life of the people living in North Korea is heavily affected by the communist government, mostly in a negative manner, though from certain aspects we can find some positives. The people in North Korea are very restricted, being able to do only what the government allows them to do and nothing more. All of the people work for the government, and in return they got energy, food, and water for it. They are not allowed to have any access to the international media or the internet, so they live in total isolation from the rest of the world, having no clue what is going in the rest of the world or how it functions. The people have no right to express their opinion except if the leader asks for it. Everyone who disobeys the government ends up either in prison or dead. Despite all the negatives, the people of North Korea actually have better lives than the people in around one third of the total number of countries in the world. This is like that because the country is very safe, there's no classes, and everyone usually has access to the basic needs for living, and they do not pay taxes.
<span>Assuming that this is referring to the same list of options that was posted before with this question, <span>the correct response would be "except food surplus", since this is a product of more advance agricultural societies. </span></span><span />
I wanna say the answer is- B.
I might be wrong,so if I am,I'm sorry
While many Americans know that they have a right to free speech, the lay opinion often views the degree of protection afforded by the United State Constitution as much broader than it is in reality. The First Amendment does not protect all types of speech.
The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” While it states “Congress,” the protections are also against state government and local public officials from making any law that abridges a person’s freedom of speech. However, simply because the government cannot make a law of this nature does not mean that individuals are free to say anything that they want to. For example, employers may prohibit certain types of speech that would not violate a person’s First Amendment rights if the employer was not a public employer.
So I believe the answers would either be B or C (:
Thanks me and mark as brainliest (:
