I would say B. because if the wealthy person dies the will verifies who all the money would go to.
Assuming you mean the Ottoman Empire, the Turks had a massively different mindset. The Byzantine were not religiously tolerant and they actively sought out the conversion of the Turks and other Muslim population. While the ottomans actively gave control of their own land to the Dhmiri a christian estate that payed moderate taxes for religious freedoms. Also the Byzantines had no African or Asian Ambitions like the Ottomans. The Greeks were more interested in Italy the anything else. The Ottomans on the other hand set up one of the largest transcontinental empire ever seen.<span />
<span>Fritz Heider concluded that people tend to attribute others' behavior either to their </span>dispositions or their situations.
In other words, Heider suggested that people believe that others make decisions based off of circumstances and innate personality.
Deforestation has its pros and cons but tbh i’m not okay with obliterating wild life and natural ecosystems to create a walmart.
Economic factors including especially the level of technology attained by a particular society and the economic relations into which men enter on the basis of that technology exert a decisive influence on the course of political, social, and intellectual evolution is known as economic interpretation.
<u>Explanation:</u>
An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States argues that the structure of the Constitution of the United States was motivated primarily by the personal financial interests of the Founding Fathers; Beard contends that the authors of The Federalist Papers represented an interest group themselves.
Basically, Beard argued that the U.S. Constitution was adopted in order to protect the rights and interests of the wealthy, upper-class members of society. The 'Founding Fathers' were members of this upper-class group.
