Answer: It perpetuates the two-party system because minor parties do not attract a wide enough range of supporters to win.
Explanation:
The United States may be a democracy but it is one that is run by two parties. Minor parties do not have the reach, support or financing to challenge the great Republican and Democratic parties which is why in other to get enough votes to get into the major offices, one simply must belong to one of the two parties.
This is what the scenario above depicts. The plurality system assigs electoral votes to the candidate with the highest vote in the state and with the Reds and the Blues having support too wide to surmount, the system favors them and perpetuates their dominance.
I belive the answer to the first one is no I would have to assume a habitual zone is one area on a planet. for example, an air conditioned building vs. the Savvanah dessert. However I am not sure maybe other answers will help more on this one. Sorry.... Earth-like planet would of course need water, plant life, animals, oxygen, fossil fuels etc. A challenge we would face on a travel to another liveable planet: do we have engough transportation? engough fuel to make it? How long can we live on this planet? Who or what else is present here? etc. Yes I do think they should discover a planet with earth like qualities befor investing in tools to get us to them. So money is not wasted. (make sure to put this into your own words )
Answer:
square metres of plant materials required to support the fox = 3650 m²
Explanation:
From the given information:
the daily caloric requirement of the fox = 800
In a year, we have = 800 kcal × 365 /year = 292,000 kcal/year
Also, only 10% of the energy at a particular trophic level can be passed onto the next.
the net productivity of the plant material = 8000 kcal/m²/yr
So, using 10% of energy at a particular level, the fox only need 80 kcal/m²/yr
The objective is to determine in square meters, how many materials are required to support the fox.
square metres of plant materials required to support the fox = 
= 3650 m²
Well, not in the development as it would have happened otherwise: the whole American civilization, many people and life style was wiped out., Africa was also suffering from all the slaves taken from it. Only the Europeans profited.
From the point of view of the natives: not.
From the point of view of the Europeans? yes.
From the point of view of the Africans? not.
Personally? I am a great fun of American languages and, and I wish they were better maintained and I think slavery is a prize to pay for anything. No, I don't think it was a positive change, not with all the deaths and suffering.
