2 because it explains better
Answer:
Some Americans felt that the Articles of Confederation was not sufficient for the new nation because Congress had little power. Other than the few things they were able to do, the rest of the power belonged to the states. I think it was most important to correct that Congress wasn't able to enforce any of its powers, and also unable to collect state debts. If Congress couldn't enforce any of its powers, it couldn't really control anything. If they were also unable to collect state debts, then they wouldn't have enough money either. Money was essential, since if Congress didn't have money or enough power, they were pretty much almost pointless.
Hope this helped!
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
No, I don't think that any of these industries are morally wrong?
As the passage in the Bible says: "the one who is not guilty of nothing can throw the first rock," which menas that nobody has granted us the right to judge.
It is true that there are many industries that are controversial among animal advocacy groups. Some of these include rodeos, horse racing, circuses, hunting,
Many of these companies do not have the proper facilities or the proper care for animals. But that is not the case of all.
Although this is a controversial issue, some of these companies take care of animals and employ hundreds of people that support their families and pay taxes. Furthermore, they fulfill an important function in the entertainment industry.
So my suggestion would be that federal and state regulations could be more strict to protect animals, by closing those industries is not the better option.
<span>the Byzantine emperor refused to help the pope defend against Rome from my invaders because he thought it was the pope's territory</span>
<span>It reduced coast-to-coast communication from about 180 days to about a week.
This question is mildly ambiguous due to the word "communication". Does it mean "Speed of sending a message?" or "Speed of moving a physical object?" Given the available options as answers, I will assume the meaning is "Speed of moving a physical object?" With that in mind, let's look at the available options and see what makes sense.
It made coast-to-coast communication instantaneous.
* Even modern jets can't travel from coast to coast instantaneously, so you wouldn't expect a train to do so either. So this choice is just plain silly and therefore wrong.
It reduced coast-to-coast communication from about a week to about a day.
* A stagecoach had an average speed of about 5 mph and covered 60 to 70 miles per day. So it's not going to go from coast to coast in only a week. And since that part of the answer is wrong, this choice is wrong.
It reduced coast-to-coast communication from about 180 days to about a week.
* The 180 day estimate is definitely doable. That's an average speed of about 17 miles per day which is a good speed for a person walking day to day. And that would be about 400 miles per day for the train. The numbers make sense and this is the correct answer.
It made coast-to-coast communication more complicated.
* Let's see. Buy a train ticket and possibly arrange for 6 layovers. Or plan a multiple month trip and possibly coordinate that effort without having any rapid means of communications? This option is just plain silly when you consider the logistics of traveling for several months vs traveling for a mere week. So this is a bad choice.</span>
