It gave us judicial review.
(To review laws to make sure they are constitutional)
Answer:
That statement is false
Explanation:
It's the other way around. Their research shows that when the canadians put in the same situation, their judgement regarding acts of violence actually similar and consistent with the judgement made by the americans.
(this research finding is a little bit surprising because Canadians are more well known to have a more polite and gentle culture)
In general , their judgement regarding acts of violence can be influenced by their primal human instincts.
For example, the research showed that:
- both canadians and Americans overwhelmingly approved that acts of violence are justifiable if being done toward people who are broken into their house.
- Both Canadians and Americans overwhelmingly disapproved of acts of violence toward group of protesters.
Answer:
immediate cost, future benefit, salary, net benefit
Explanation:
The question "What will I have to give up?" relates to <u>immediate cost</u>.
The question "What will I gain in return?" relates to <u>future benefits</u>.
The amount of money a worker might make on a job in a year is a <u>salary</u>.
The potential earnings of becoming a doctor minus the cost of going to medical school is the <u>net benefit</u>.
Immediate cost is the money spent on doing something or acquire an asset while future benefits is the potential for a venture, an activity or asset to contribute to financial gains in the future.
Salary is a fixed regular payment, mostly paid on a monthly basis but often expressed as an annual sum, made by an employer to an employee.
Net benefit is the summation of all the benefit accrued from a venture minus all expenses, it means the present value of the Covered Payments net of all expenses.
Accept a court-appointed lawyer, I believe.
