Answer:
You could do government life (how they vote there I think Canada has a prime minister and on the contrary we have a president)
You can also compare the education living.
The language there and terms used are different In Quebec they speak French
The drinking age in Canada is also different we drink at 21 they drink lower(I’m not sure the right age)
Most transportation is the same but I thing they ride subways more than cars or they walk instead
Hope this helps
Explanation:
No.
As a charged isn't constrained to give prove in a criminal antagonistic continuing, they may not be addressed by a prosecutor or judge unless they do as such. Be that as it may, should they choose to affirm, they are liable to round of questioning and could be discovered liable of prevarication. As the race to keep up a charged individual's entitlement to quiet keeps any examination or round of questioning of that individual's position, it takes after that the choice of advice in the matter of what proof will be called is an essential strategy regardless in the ill-disposed framework and thus it may be said that it is a legal counselor's control of reality. Surely, it requires the aptitudes of insight on the two sides to be decently similarly hollowed and subjected to an unbiased judge.
By differentiate, while litigants in most affable law frameworks can be constrained to give an announcement, this announcement isn't liable to round of questioning by the prosecutor and not given under vow. This enables the litigant to clarify his side of the case without being liable to round of questioning by a talented resistance. Notwithstanding, this is predominantly on the grounds that it isn't the prosecutor yet the judges who question the respondent. The idea of "cross"- examination is altogether due to antagonistic structure of the customary law.
Judges in an antagonistic framework are unprejudiced in guaranteeing the reasonable play of due process, or basic equity. Such judges choose, regularly when called upon by advise as opposed to of their own movement, what confirm is to be conceded when there is a debate; however in some customary law wards judges assume to a greater extent a part in choosing what confirmation to concede into the record or reject. Best case scenario, mishandling legal carefulness would really make ready to a one-sided choice, rendering out of date the legal procedure being referred to—run of law being illegally subordinated by lead of man under such separating conditions.
The two events described in the study are depressions and breathing-related sleep disorder. Also, the results indicate that the events are dependent.
Two events are dependent if the result of the first event will affect the occurrence or outcome of the second event, therefore changing the probability.
ANSWER: uh yehh because basically when you know because it happened and also yeah. yes
Answer: Option(c) is correct option
Explanation:
According to question, positivist are the people following positivism who believe society is responsible for shaping people whereas interpretivist think tat people shape the society together.
These research methods are use in sociology for determining improvement or benefits of society through studies for shaping.
Other options are incorrect because individuals like society or not and dilemma between research based on statistical data or person to person research is not depicted through positivism and interpretive sociology .Thus,the correct option is option(c).
