<span>The following statements about energy efficiency is false:
</span>B) Improving energy efficiency will likely save money and provide jobs.
The goal of energy efficiency is to use less energy. By doing so less energy will be<span> generated at power plants and greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced. The final goal is better quality of our air and no climate change. Energy efficiency is also goof for the economics, while it reduces unnecessary costs for energy. New jobs and positions in the energy sector are required in order to achieve green energy and efficiency.</span>
Answer:
b) prediction
Explanation:
Based on the information provided it can be said that this statement, which is a guess at the outcome of a hypothesis, is an example of a prediction. That is because it is guessing as to what will happen (consequence) in a certain scenario without actual proof or facts. Therefore predicting based on very little to no information.
Answer:
Federalists believed in a strong central government and believed in sharing power between both nation and state. Anti-federalists believed in the opposite.
Explanation:
I stumbled across the DVD of A Passage to India while browsing through the selection at the University of Melbourne library back in 2010.
Before then, I didn't know anything about the book (other than being vaguely familiar with the title in a way we're vaguely familiar with a lot of classic titles.) I turned the DVD over and read the description on the back, and learned that the story was about the trial of an Indian man accused of sexually assaulting a white woman in the racially charged atmosphere of British Colonial India.
<span>It sounded to me like </span>To Kill a Mockingbird set in India.
<span>I usually dig political and historical films, so this sounded great. </span>
<span>I borrowed it from the library, and was tremendously disappointed by it.
</span>
<span>Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed. Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. It was used to justify both sex discrimination and usage of labor laws. ... The ruling had important implications for protective labor legislation.</span>
