The people votes for members that are put in leadership positions in congress
A reasonable view of the choice of using your friend as expert testimony is <u>D. The friend’s </u><u>insights</u> are valuable as peer testimony.
<h3>What is peer testimony?</h3>
Peer testimony is a testimony given by a person without the required specialist expertise in a particular matter.
Peer testimony serves as an assertion made by someone who has experience or knowledge of a particular matter. For example, your friend who has a brother with childhood Type I diabetes.
Thus, a reasonable view of the choice of using your friend as expert testimony is <u>Option D</u>.
Learn more about peer testimony at brainly.com/question/4214423
My answer for this question would be AGREE. Yes, I don't like to work with ignorant people. Ignorance is a choice. Ignorance can be avoided when you have the eagerness to learn. Ignorance is like an excuse for those people who are lazy enough to learn and people like these are considered a liability.
<span>are a type of case-based reasoning.
This is because they use a case scenario when simulating how the best of experts can act in a particular scenario. They rose to prominence in the 1970-'s and are widely used in the ares of medicine. they simulate the experts in the field and re very expensive to create.
</span>
Undoubtedly, there needs to be a certain degree of arms proliferation in all countries in order to secure their borders from external or internal threats. However, when the military budget of countries like the USA, the world´s largest power, is far greater than the budget destined to meet other needs of the State, these latter ones are unavoidably neglected, to the detriment of the country´s people. On the other hand, if a greater budget is destined to the building of infrastructure, history shows —like in Japan and Germany— that the economy becomes less dependent on warfare and relies more on human capital and culture.
The question then becomes whether economic gain through arms proliferation is more advantageous to the welfare of the people or if the wellbeing of the people —through the building of infrastructure— is more beneficial to any given government. Since the wellbeing of the people is, in principle —based on the International Bill of Human Rights—, the aim of all countries, these should be more preoccupied with the building of infrastructure.
