Your answer is true. Hope this helps!
Answer:
The correct answer is: <em>B. A study of the types and prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in small rural towns in a mid-western state.</em>
Explanation:
Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is a topic that has had stigma, negative stereotypes and other negative connotations attached to it throughout history. If a study investigated the types and prevalence of STIs in small rural towns in a mid-western state, along with stigmatizing participants in the study, the results of this study could also potentially stigmatize residents of these towns by extrapolating claims such as "town <em>X </em>in this mid-western state has high prevalence of various types of STIs". These claims might make it seem like the presence of STIs is high in a given rural town (when this in fact might be untrue), especially considering the town is small in size. In this way, a study that investigates the types and prevalence of STIs in small rural towns in a mid-western state could produce harm to members of the sampled population who do not actually participate in the research study.
The case should be on the venue where Austin bought the infected formula manufactured by Nestle USA Inc.
It doesn't affect if the baby was born in South Carolina: They cant say the alleged harm occur there just because the baby was born there. The harm occurred where Austin bought the formula by Nestle, if the formula was bought in Minnesota, South Carolina shouldn't be involved in this case just because Austin's residency.
The case shouldn't be transferred, the final verdict it should be determined by the laws of the state where the harm object (In this case the formula) was bought and consumed.
Oppressive taxes and no representation in parliament are the ones that come on top of my head, do you need three or just two?
