The best and most correct answer among the choices provided by the question is the third choice "natural monopoly."
A natural monopoly<span> is a distinct type of </span>monopoly<span> that may arise when there are extremely high fixed costs of distribution, such as exist when large-scale infrastructure is required to ensure supply.</span>
I hope my answer has come to your help. God bless and have a nice day ahead!
Answer:
In his battles as in his campaigns, Napoleon depended on speed, mass, and aggressive maneuver: normally he struck at one wing of a hostile army, preferably the one nearer its communications. Only at Austerlitz did he actually stand on the defensive and lure his enemies into a trap.
Can I plz be brainliest?
<span>This question can refer to either first or second World Wars. In both cases it happened that 1) the immigrans and refugees went to other countries - such as Latin America, which affected those countries 2) almost all countries were affiliated with one or the other side - sending them ams for example 3) many other countries send their men to fight in those wars, which is why many Canadians and US-Americans fought and died in Europe</span>
Answer: Choice C.
They worried that Lincoln would try to end slavery in the United States.
==========================================================
Explanation:
The issue of slavery was debated and fought over for many years before the election of 1860. It was only until Lincoln became president that sparked the southern states to secede, which led to the Civil War. Proof of this is found in the many Declaration of Secession documents produced by each state that left the union. This is basically a document explaining why they left the United States to form the Confederate States of America (CSA) aka the Confederacy.
In modern times, some people mistakenly claim that the Civil War wasn't over slavery but rather states' rights. This is simply false. The documents I mentioned prove that slavery was the core issue. More proof is the various states having issues with the fugitive slave act, in that the northern states didn't really adhere to the law to the level of the southern states' liking. I guess you could argue that states' rights were involved, but specifically the south fought to have the right to own slaves. In short, it's all about getting the correct context. Expanding that context, simply look at the decades preceding the war and notice all of the tension involving whether a new state was a free state vs a slave state.
The answer to your first question would be C. The answer to your second question is B.
