The argument in favor of US economic aid to other nations is invalid because the premises do not relate to the conclusion.
An argument is valid when all the premises are true and build a true conclusion.
According to the above, the argument presented has the following premises:
- Foreign economic aid to other countries is a good investment for the United States.
- It comprises only one percent of the entire federal budget, about $ 20 billion.
And the conclusion it presents is:
- Returns untold amounts in increased sales of American goods and services.
According to the above, the argument is a fallacy because the premises are not related to the conclusion because:
An investment is an economic contribution to receive a later profit, in this case, the United States is investing, and those who are receiving the profit are private US companies. Furthermore, no argument is presented that relates the increase in sales of goods and services with this investment.
Learn more in: brainly.com/question/2645376
Answer:
How did the mestizos feel about the Spanish rulers?
They understood the need.
They wanted to have more control.
They did not like them in their country.
They learned to live with them.
Explanation:
B pleas emark brainliest if right heart and five stars friend request if possible.
<u>King George III signed</u> the proclamation of 1763,
exactly on <u><em>October 7 of that year</em></u>,
-to calm the fears of the native Indians by stopping the colonists' westward expansion while expanding the lucrative fur trade-,
<u>in Sant James</u> that was where he had his court at that time.
Answer:
Abraham's son Ishmael, was his son from Hagar, his handmaiden at the time. Ishmael was a result of not believing God would give his wife Sarai a son. His son Isaac came after Ishmael and was born from Sarai, his wife.
Explanation:
