Because if the there is no power, then how would the government make laws? With no power then there would be no rules, from the government.
Answer:
a powerful central government to oppose state governments. a government focused on growing industrial strength and a big economy. a limited central government linking independent states.
HOPE IT HELPS✌
First of all, the answer must first be rounded down to prominent nations in Europe during this time that attempted to practice imperialism. These include Russia, the United States, Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Russia and Austria-Hungary practiced similar forms of imperialism, simply expanding into the immediate nearby nations. The "winners of imperialism would first and foremost include Great Britain, who took over approximately 1/3 of the globe at one point, had an extremely populous and powerful overseas empire, and commanded great profits. France comes in next, owning vast portions of Africa and pieces of Asia. The "losers" would first include Austria-Hungary, who definitely achieved minimally. Portugal and Spain both obtained small amounts of territory due to their poor economies, Spain especially losing parts of its empire to America after the 1898 Spanish-American War. Italy is prominently known as the biggest loser; it invaded Ethiopia, and failed, owned no land in Asia, and had one major colony, Libya, which was unprofitable and continually rebelled. Germany was a very powerful nation, yet it failed to gain mus territory for joining the game too late, thought Germany's incredibly able prime minister Otto von Bismark commented that imperialism was a waste of time. Belgium and the Netherlands may also be seen as "winners", both taking territory of a size far greater than their own nation, both of which were highly profitable. Russia would probably be on neither side, having owned a vast territory and much imperialism yet not much of it was incredibly significant. Now, the United States owned little territory, only some in the Pacific and the Caribbean, which was a small amount for the strength of the country, but the nation was typically opposed to imperialism and what it got was VERY profitable, and truly all that the nation desired. So true winners would be Great Britain and France, while losers would be Italy and Austria-Hungary.
The fallacies of misdirected and emotional appeals bad arguments becausemisdirected appeals are arguments that “appeals to a questionable authority”. Fallacies of misdirected appeals are bad arguments because the statement is misdirecting the reader by the use of a questionable person of authority in a different subject matter that is not in their field of expertise, thus providing non-supporting evidence for the conclusion
.An emotional appeal is an “argument that appeals to fear”. Fallacies of emotional appeals are bad arguments because they are based on emotions rather than on valid or supporting evidence.
Emotional appeals are used to create a sense of fear into the audience, thus the reactions of the audience are based on their emotions and uncertainties rather than supporting evidence to formulate an educated and unbiased opinion or conclusion
Learn more about argument here:brainly.com/question/3775579
#SPJ4
Answer:
Quota sampling
Explanation:
Quota sampling: It gathers representative data from a particular group of people. In this sampling method, the data is being chosen from a particular sub-group of a population. This is considered to be more reliable as compared to other non-probability sampling methods such as snowball sampling.
Example: A researcher can take 200 males participants between the age of 18-25.
In the given question, the graph represents the quota sampling method.
