Well, before you start, you need to choose a side. If you are confused on the phrasing, it is simply asking:
Do you agree that the Supreme Court should be able to think of the law differently during a case to fit with current views?
After that, start thinking of why.
Yes, they should, the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to change as societal views changed.
No, they shouldn't, just because societal views are changing, what we need for our country to run smoothly is the same as it has been,
Hope I could help!
The correct answer is B.
<u>Therefore the appropiate null and alternative hypothesis are the following:</u>
. H 0 : p 1 = p 2
H 1 : p 1 ≠ p 2
The aim of the test would be to conclude whether H0 should be rejected or not at a 10% significance level.
<u>In this case a billateral significance test needs to be conducted,</u> as such a test consists on testing the equality of the test value with a given value. In this case the H0 would be rejected if the test value is significanly different, both in the case that it is superior or inferior.
On the contrary, an unilateral significance test would have been conducted if aiming to check whether a value is superior or equal to the test value (left unilateral) or inferior or equal to this value (right unilateral).
Then, the result of the test is the one stated: rejecting H0 at the 10% significance level.
Slavery continued in Washington, D.C, but slave trading was banned.
Hope this helps!
-Payshence
Answer: A the people of a nation should have a shared culture and ethnicity
