At the t-intersection, she should allow oncoming traffic on the intersecting roadway to move forward.
<h3 /><h3>What is T- intersection?</h3>
A T-intersection is an intersection at which three routes converge. To inform cars that their route does not continue straight through the intersection, these have warning signs posted on the approaches to the crossing that depicts T-INTERSECTION.
At the T-inter section, the driver needs to yield the right way to move the traffic further without causing any traffic mismanagement or accident on the street.
Learn more about traffic, here:
brainly.com/question/17017741
#SPJ2
When creating legislation, a bill has to pass through both Congress and the President and can be challenged by the Judicial branch. Additionally, both Congress and the President must approve before the country goes to war.
Answer:
False
Explanation:
It is FALSE that Jeremy Bentham and the rest of the utilitarians believe that the principle of utility should be applied to humans only, excluding the animals.
This is evident when Jeremy Bentham and other utilitarians argued that Principal of Utility is based on the belief that the action of individuals is good in as much it leads to the happiness of the individual involved.
And the application of the principle of utility to animals (other than human) is sufficient only if during the exploitation of animals, the animals experience happiness more than pain.
There is no objective answer to this question, as both sides have arguments that support their views.
If you believe that you are bound by Hobbes' argument, it is because of tacit consent. Tacit consent means that, even though you have not explicitly agreed to follow laws, you have indicated your agreement through other means, for example, by using the public services of the government or by remaining within the limits of your country. Also, you could argue that any rational person would prefer to follow the rules of the government than to live in the state of nature. Therefore, if you are rational, your consent is assumed. Finally, you could also argue that while you did not explicitly agreed, maybe your ancestors did, which still binds you as a member of the same society.
On the other hand, if you believe that you are not bound by Hobbes' argument, you could argue that any contract that is not freely agreed upon is not valid. As the government uses force to make you act according to the law, you cannot be considered to be freely consenting. Also, you can argue that agreeing to follow some rules does not imply following <em>all</em> of the laws of the country. Finally, a common argument against Hobbes is the lack of empirical data. As we do not know if the state of nature is actually bad, or if the contract ever happened, the government cannot gain its legitimacy in that way.
