During World War I, 116,516 US soldiers were killed and 204,002 were wounded. If you add those two numbers together, the total number of US soldiers killed or wounded was 320,518.
You can represent that as a fraction of the current population of Chicago like this:

For simplicity's sake (since I assume the Chicago population number is an estimate), let's round the number of soldiers killed or wounded down to 300,000. That would look like this:

We can simplify that down a lot by dividing the number of soldiers and the number of Chicagoans by the least common denominator of 300,000. That would give us this fraction:

So for every 1 US soldier killed or wounded in World War I, there are 10 Chicagoans living in the city today.
Answer:
A.
Explanation:
Cattail and water Lilly's are plants and producers so the catfish is the most reasonable answer
Answer:
If John stops leaving his room in a mess in the future, then losing his wallet has functioned as a negative punishment.
Explanation:
- Punishment is taking something that someone likes from them in order to reduce instances of occurrence of a certain unwanted behavior.
- Negative punishment is therefore the occurrence of a disliked consequence as a result of an unwanted action.
- In the above instance, John losing his wallet is negative, but it achieves a consequent desired behavior of self organization.
Answer: The Pilgrims and Puritans came to America to practice religious freedom. In the 1500s England broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and created a new church called the Church of England. Everyone in England had to belong to the church. ... The Pilgrims decided to settle in this area and called it Plymouth.
Hope this helps!!! Good luck!!! ;)
The Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966) required (for the first time) that someone accused of a crime be informed of his or her constitutional rights prior to interrogation. This protected the rights of the accused, or the defendant, in two new ways: 1) It educated the person about relevant constitutional rights; and 2) It inhibited law enforcement officials from infringing those rights by applying the Exclusionary Rule to any testimony/incriminating statements the defendant made unless he intentionally waived his rights.