The answer is: A.) He was more lenient and was guided by Confucian ideals.
- Unlike the government methods used by Qin, which included harsh punishment for those who disagreed with him to the extent to which an individual could be put to death simply by suggesting another way to do things, the methods used by Liu Bang included the <u>abolition of the harsh law of the Qin Dynasty</u> and establishing a new one that was supported by the people. Liu took a series of measures that were <u>good for his people</u> as well, such as the reduction of field taxes levied on the peasants.
- Another difference is that, while Qin was a legalist (basically someone who believes that people are bad so it is necessary to control every minute of their lives), Liu Bang promoted Confucianism as the dominant political ideology, in which it is believed that a good government should rule by virtue and moral example rather than by punishment or force.
Regarding the other options:
- Option B.) He banned books and executed scholars who protested: Qin, and not Liu Bang, banned Confucianism along with all other schools that were against his own ideals. Freedom of speech was banned, and Quin ordered the burning of the books that critized him along with people that did so.
- C.) He divided up the power among several states: Qin, and once again not Bang, divided his empire into 36 provinces. Each had two government officials in charge of it. He implemented this measure so that he could control every citizen.
- D.) He banned all trade with cultures outside of China: China's natural barriers in the east, south, and west, protected her from invasion. But Qin wanted to reinforce China's protection from the Mongol tribe to the north. Therefore, Qin ordered his people to build The Great Wall, so the people couldn't trade with foreign cultures either.
Answer:All of them
Explanation:
I answered it on Ed Corse and got it right
Well from the way I see it, if other countries were to get in on the holocaust it would just make it worse becuase then Germany would have to start a war with those countries and it would be a big mess and I’m sure other countries feared that something like that would possibly happen which is why they didn’t act upon it and if they did they would be causing problems for their own country which is what they didn’t need.
Answer:
The Indian Removal Act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830, authorizing the president to grant unsettled lands west of the Mississippi in exchange for Indian lands within existing state borders. A few tribes went peacefully, but many resisted the relocation policy. During the fall and winter of 1838 and 1839, the Cherokees were forcibly moved west by the United States government. Approximately 4,000 Cherokees died on this forced march, which became known as the "Trail of Tears."
Explanation:
"Women who enjoy a higher social status are usually less educated than women of a lower social status", the given statement best explains the connection between the social status of women and a country's overall health.
Answer: Option A
<u>Explanation:</u>
This statement best explains the relation between the social status of women and a country’s overall health because it explains the psychology of social class in any country. Here such difference is observed because the growth and development of people is immensely dependent on the environment they survived.
Hunger of Education is may also depend on discomfort one faced, which predicts the deficiency carried by any community or society in any nation but not all face struggles, some may get opportunities because their ancestors worked hard.
So, if women who enjoy higher social status and vision for the development of individuality then maybe they resulted from less education than the women with lower social status who target development for society and nation. However, here statement allows only for discussion of a probability rather than a surety.
