The correct answer is A) a higher chance of reelection.
A potential benefit for a government leader using cost-benefit analysis is a higher chance of reelection.
A correct and useful method of decision-making is CBA or better known as cost-benefit analysis. This method is very simple. You compare your advantages to the disadvantages of the decision. You collect the information at hand and then proceed to make the best decision. In 1840, Julies Dupuit who was an Engineer from France started to use this method successfully. That is why is correct to say that a potential benefit for a government leader using cost-benefit analysis is a higher chance of reelection.
Answer:
Explanation: It is protected by the fact that it has a system of separation of powers with three branches that control each other and prevent tyrannical behavior from a single branch. They are also separated into local provinces and autonomous regions that are ruled by small scale governments that have some degree of independence and that could easily oppose a new form of a tyrannical government.
Answer:
Answer in the Explanation
Explanation:
British I want to make a proposing negotaie about the treaty we have right now. I want to make a deal if we get more money we have we can share it but 50% of the profit. Or we can make a deal if you if the crdit and we will get half the credit as well .
I don't know if I did this right
Hope this help :)
Answer:
This case involves a federal death sentence imposed on defendant-appellant Fields for conviction of a federal capital offense. Fields was sentenced to death largely on the basis of the opinion of a psychiatrist who stated that he could confidently predict Fields would be dangerous in the future. The psychiatrist testified that he did not know of any "standard psychiatric or medical procedures used in arriving at a determination or predicting future dangerousness" and that he was unaware of specific empirical data or studies. He issued his opinion without engaging in any testing or any other objective measures or use of an actuarial method. His basis for this opinion was discussions with the prosecutors and review of some records regarding the defendant. The defense attorney objected to the testimony as unreliable under the standards for expert testimony established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical (i.e., that proffered evidence must be grounded in scientific reasoning or methodology). The district court overruled the objections and allowed the expert testimony to go to the jury.
Explanation:
Industrial development company improve . encouraging government support
