Answer:
Perfect competition
Explanation:
The widget market is best described as a perfectly competitive market. A perfectly competitive market is a type of market without restriction in entry and exit, it is characterized by many sellers of similar products and buyers and there is perfect information about the price of goods. In a perfectly competitive market, due to the free entry and exit, no single producer has an influence over the price of goods. In the long-run, in perfectly competitive market, there is no economic profit because more producers will enter the market if it is profitable thus bringing about competition which will cause average revenue to equal average cost in the long run.
Answer: I would say B, and here's why I believe so
Explanation: D would be incorrect since it doesn't make sense in this context, and by that logic, neither does A, so we can mentally throw those out of the playing field.
This leaves us with B and C, which I do believe C very well could be the answer as well since it would make sense, but I personally would go with B. Denying someone their rights is a social inequality, and the LGBT community in general is still considered un-equal to their heterosexual counterparts in MANY ways, example: in some states, gay couples aren't allowed to adopt. and in some countries, gay marriage isn't even legal yet! (isn't that unfair?!) To add more backstory, religion has also been used to deny the rights of women in the older days, (see "sexism in the early 1900's")
False
During the Middle Ages, the Vikings sometimes invaded the Northern Europe region. The Vikings originally settled the areas of Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden).
Explanation:
As noted, Republicans and Democrats have dominated electoral politics since the 1860s. This unrivaled record of the same two parties continuously controlling a nation’s electoral politics reflects structural aspects of the American political system as well as special features of the parties.
The standard arrangement for electing national and state legislators in the United States is the “single-member” district system, wherein the candidate who receives a plurality of the vote (that is, the greatest number of votes in the given voting district) wins the election. Although a few states require a majority of votes for election, most officeholders can be elected with a simple plurality.
Unlike proportional systems popular in many democracies, the single-member-district arrangement permits only one party to win in any given district. The single-member system thus creates incentives to form broadly based national parties with sufficient management skills, financial resources and popular appeal to win legislative district pluralities all over the country. Under this system, minor and third-party candidates are disadvantaged. Parties with minimal financial resources and popular backing tend not to win any representation at all. Thus, it is hard for new parties to achieve a viable degree of proportional representation, and achieve national clout, due to the “winner-take-all” structure of the U.S. electoral system.
Why two instead of, say, three well-financed national parties? In part because two parties are seen to offer the voters sufficient choice, in part because Americans historically have disliked political extremes, and in part because both parties are open to new ideas (see below).
