1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
sergey [27]
3 years ago
7

Could you have legitimacy but not authority?

History
1 answer:
kotegsom [21]3 years ago
4 0

Answer: yes

Explanation:

Power is an entity's or individual's ability to control or direct others, while authority is influence that is predicated on perceived legitimacy. Consequently, power is necessary for authority, but it is possible to have power without authority. In other words, power is necessary but not sufficient for authority.

You might be interested in
In the bass the river and sheila mant the narrator invites sheila to?
Elan Coil [88]
If your taking the Growing Up: Unit Test for English on Connexus the answer are,
1. D
2. D
3. B
4. E
5. A
6. D
7. B
8. C
9. B
10. A
11. C
12. D
13. A
14. B
15. D
16. A
17. B
18. B
19. A
I took the test, these are all the correct answers.
5 0
3 years ago
What democratic principle does this diagram reflect?
lidiya [134]

The answer is B Different bodies have seperate roles

6 0
3 years ago
Select all that apply.
pantera1 [17]

The correct answers are A: <em>Social classes disappear</em> and C: <em>Everyone's basic needs are met.</em>

Communist society is characterized by  replacement private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership of property hence no social classes in the system. It is also ensures that Everyone's basic needs are met  since the government represents every individual by controlling the means of production, entrepreneurship, capital goods, and natural resources.

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which best summarizes the section titled modern origami
notka56 [123]
Um could you repost the question its not fully on the website 
3 0
3 years ago
Lated<br> To avoid future wars, Wilson believed that military<br> forces should be
Firdavs [7]

Answer:

Diarmed

Explanation:

In the aftermath of world war 1 which lasted between 1914 to 1918. There were efforts to prevent future war. It is on this note that the President of the United States Woodrow Wilson declared that To avoid future wars, Wilson believed that military forces should be disarmed.

Wilson reason that one of the main reasons for the cause of war is because many European soldiers readily armed to fight wars.

3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What was the cause behind European imperialism in Africa
    5·1 answer
  • What countries are involved in the Yemeni conflict and why?
    14·1 answer
  • compare and contrast the daily life of jews under greek and roman rule. Consider how greek and roman rule affected the jewish pe
    12·1 answer
  • According to the declaration, where does the government get its power?
    7·2 answers
  • Which statements about Giana's trade are accurate choose all answers that are correct?
    8·2 answers
  • A critical essay on the 2020 presidential election
    6·1 answer
  • On a two-dimensional graph representing two variables:
    15·1 answer
  • What invention helped the Low Country and Up Country get back on their feet after the war?
    7·1 answer
  • Which Supreme Court case ended segregation?
    6·1 answer
  • What was a challenge for the Europeans who attempted to create the first printing press
    12·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!