According to the information provided, it can be inferred that Jimmy Carter made sure that the board was composed of officials in a balanced and impartial manner so that the person's election was made in a fair and meritorious manner (option 4).
<h3>What is merit?</h3>
Merit is a term that refers to the attitude, or action that makes a man worthy of reward or punishment. In principle, merit is linked to the result of good deeds that make a man worthy of appreciation. However, it can be viewed in a positive or negative.
<h3>Importance of merit in democracy</h3>
Merit is an important aspect for modern democracies because the public power is in the hands of representatives elected by the citizens. Therefore, it is assumed that the candidates and those elected to occupy public positions are thereby merits and adequate preparation to carry out those positions.
President Carter guaranteed the protection of the employees to organize the Board of Protection of Merits stating that the members of the board of directors may only be removed from their position if they breach their agreements or act in a way that generates legal cause for their termination.
According to the foregoing, it can be interpreted that the members of the board were not going to act in a corrupt manner to prevent them from being expelled from their position, which contributed to the election of personnel according to their merit (option 4).
Learn more about Jimmy Carter in: brainly.com/question/1064969
Answer:
B.) Regard it as a stop sign: come to a complete stop and proceed when traffic is clear.
Explanation:
A flashing red light is pretty much a yield sign but you have to come to a full stop, it has the same principle as a yield but it treated slightly differently.
may I get brainliest please :)
Advantages:
Lighter Sentence. ...
Reduced Charge. ...
The Case Is Over. ...
Disadvantages. ...
Avoiding Problems with Prosecution's Case. ...
No “Not Guilty” Result. ...
Possibility of Coercion.
Answer: b. No, because the state acted as a market participant
Explanation:
The state in this instance was a market participant because they were acting as buyers who were looking for companies that could supply the service of exploiting their gas fields.
As a result, they have total discretion to pick whichever supplier they choose, regardless of the benefits or lack thereof, much like a normal buyer would do. The interstate company would therefore lose the case.
