They did not like the idea at all. They wanted land period. The fact that the United States wanted their country to streach from coast to coast and that this land belonged to them anyway (according to manifest destiny) ment that Mexico would have to give up their claims or go to war for that land.
Answer:
Nepal has undergone and is consistently undergoing changes in its governance, and structure of society for which it has lead to frequent changes in the constitution.
Explanation:
The Government of Nepal act 1948, was changed because there were no democratic rights in the Constitution.
The first democratic constitution enacted in the year 1959 was scrapped by the King of Nepal because he felt that the constitution is trying to reduce his powers.
The next constitution enacted in 1962 was scrapped after a short period of time because it was an anti democratic constitution.
In the year 1990 the King of Nepal used the constitution for selfish needs.
The correct answer is the Fiedler’s contingency theory. This
is a type of contingency theory by which it shows or focuses on the
effectiveness of leadership that are likely to base on a particular situation and
the numerous factors that may take place.
Answer: The answer is C: There were massive increases in production due to the use of crops better suited to advance agriculture.
Explanation:
"Green revolution" is a term used for rapid increases in crops especially 'wheat' and 'rice' yields in developing countries which was introduced to Mexico and India by Norman Borlaug and Ms Swaminathan in the early 20th Century. They used improved crop varieties combined with the expanded use of fertilizers and other chemicals to boost crop production in developing countries. The goal of the Green Revolution was to increase the yields of wheat and rice by improving agronomic technology. This helped developing countries to overcome food defects.
Answer:
Risky shift.
Explanation:
Risky shift is when a group or team agrees on a decision that would have been riskier for one individual to take alone. Such a group attitude would increase the chance for consequences that are not positive. In such a scenario people would change their decisions to be more riskier when they are in a group compared to when they are acting individually. It is a form of group polarization.
