It would be more logical to have an abundant amount of resources than to be in a center of a training route. Thomas Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807 is an example. America suffered more even though it was meant to punish France and Great Britain. If America had more supplies then they wouldn't have any issue with trading with someone else. America is across the sea so it is hard to believe they were in the center of the training route.
Having a good location is important, but if there isn't enough to trade then that creates more issues. One would be that the area could become a reputation for being unreliable. It does come to the question if the loads of resources is worth traveling for or to take a route that's faster but there isn't a lot of give. Being isolated also means that of there happens to be an issue in the trade then the location is either off the maps or people don't want to there because of the distance and the prices might be able to go up. That's why resources are better than location.
Answer: Normative ethics would generally ask what right action is. ... Metaethics, on the other hand, would call into question what it means to say that any action is "correct", whether this type of evaluation is objective or subjective, universal or particular
Explanation :
the coffee ☕ crops come from Ethiopia and Uganda and banana crops from India and China
Answer:
A
Explanation:
It was the mass murder of Jews
