The answer is: a newspaper article describing reduced crime rates in cities with teen curfews.
This piece of evidence would best support an argument in favor of a teen curfew because it is based in facts, not opinions, and it shows that other places that have established teen curfews have had positive results because of it. Therefore, there is evidence to asume the possibility that if teen curfew is established in other cities, it would get the same positive results.
An onlilne poll of comunity members and an interview with a parent would serve as evidence when studying how the community feels about teen curfew but not as evidence in an argument in favor of teen curfew because the data would be biased.
It might be said that people migrate from rural to urban areas. This kind of migration is known as interregional migrations and it might be produced because of jobs opportunities and environment issues. This kind of migration could be found in countries such us Russia (people migrate to the North), Canada (from east to west) and China (from Rio to Brazilia)
Answer:
Britishers passed a Quartering Act which flamed the anger of American Colonists.
Explanation:
The Quartering Act was passed by Parliament on March 24, 1765. According to this act, it was mandatory for American Colonists to provide British soldiers with barracks and supplies. If the barracks provided by Colonists would be small to contain all the soldiers, they were to be provided inns, alehouses, livery stables, etc.
The act was passed to increase their revenue cost in American Colonies. <u>The thing that triggered the colonists was not to provide housing for the soldiers but the heavy taxes it imposed on them</u>.
So, the correct answer is the action of passing the Quartering Act flamed anger in American Colonists.
I'm a girl and I think that's true
The correct answer here is "More than".
According to Bibb Latane and his Social Impact Theory that he developed in 1981 the impact will increase more if the group size increases from two to three member. This may sound strange but according to his theory the more members the group, that is targets of impact as he called them the less impact individual targets have. So that means that in larger groups the impact of a new member is weaker than in smaller groups.
