Answer:
the subject of a discussion, a bit of composing, an individual's (women) contemplation, or a show; a point.
Explanation:
It's a significant, yet ignored point that there truly is no there's a gender income hole and that pay hole has nothing to do with gender separation. That is, there is basically no proof that people working similarly situated with a similar foundation, instruction and capabilities are paid in an unexpected way. Regardless of whether it's the Target Corporation, Social Medias, the University of Virginia, the United Way, the White House or McDonald's, there is practically no proof that any of those associations have two compensation scales: one for men (at a higher pay) and one for ladies (at a lower wage). Obviously, that would be unlawful, and if that training existed, associations would be presented to legitimate activity and "a large portion of the lawful calling would be taking such cases on possibility expenses" as Tim brings up.
I think, there can be the basement of pressing. As an example here could be social networks, where people share their life to others, and other had to be better than first one. So there can be the pressure of economical situation of some persons, and also the pressure of lower self-esteem.
Answer: 84
Steps:
1. Find distance between (-8,-6) and (4,-6) using distance formula:
√ (4 - (-8))^2 + ((-6) - (-6))^2
√ (12)^2 + (0)^2
√ 144 + 0
√ 144
12
2. Find distance between (1,2) and (8,2) using distance formula:
√ (8-1)^2 + (2-2)^2
√ (7)^2 + (0)^2
√ 49 + 0
√ 49
7
3. Multiply found values to find area
A = l x w
A = 12 x 7
A = 84
