Answer:
The correct answer is D. The Antarctic Treaty set Antarctica aside for scientific research.
Explanation:
The Antarctic Treaty was signed on December 1, 1959 in Washington and became effective on June 23, 1961.
Through it, a normative framework was provided in relation to: the peaceful use of Antarctica; cooperation for scientific research; information exchange; the inspection regime for activities carried out in the Antarctic; the status quo of the territorial claims of seven of the signatory countries; and norms and conventions for the conservation of resources and the environment.
The Treaty designates Antarctica as a region of peace and cooperation, also addressing issues related to claims of sovereignty. It establishes that: "in the interest of all humanity, Antarctica will continue to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and will not become the scene or object of international discord".
The Treaty was signed by Argentina, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, Belgium, South Africa, Russia, Chile, France, Great Britain, Japan and the United States.
How to grow and better my education by getting help from others
Answer:
A. The clean growth plan will provide tax incentives for local business to develop and manufacture pollution-control systems
Explanation:
The excerpt talks about a clean growth plan initiated by the Country of Remo for the purpose of developing pollution control systems. It also states that there are no companies in Remo that can produce pollution-control systems. Therefore, the plan would mostly benefit foreign exporters.
Option A would weaken the argument because it says that the clean growth plan would provide tax incentives or benefits for local businesses to develop and manufacture pollution-control systems. If this happens, there would be no room for foreign exporters as the passage says there would.
Of Human Mating Tendency to classify toys and songs as either masculine or feminine is most likely to facilitate the development of a child’s neural connections
Explanation:
Lex talionis means treating the criminals in the way the criminals treated the victims. In means giving the same sufferings to others as others have caused them suffering.
This principle is not plausible because according to Nathanson, it will make us to act in an immoral way with others. We cannot hijack the hijacker's plane because they did to us. We cannot spy on others because others are spying on us. Nathanson objected the principle because he believes that it is not possible to measure sufferings of others as different people suffered differently. So we cannot bring equal suffering.
