The relationship between international trade agreements and protectionist policies is A. International trade agreements usually mitigate protectionist trade policies by reducing barriers to trade.
<h3>How do trade agreements relate with protectionist polices?</h3>
Protectionist trade policies are instituted in order to reduce imports from other nations while international trade policies are done to improve trade and imports.
This means that international policies work to mitigate protectionist policies by encouraging international trade.
Find out more on international trade agreements at brainly.com/question/1465144.
#SPJ1
Answer:
The North wanted the new states to be free states. Most northerners thought that slavery was wrong and many northern states had outlawed slavery. The South, however, wanted the new states to be slave states
Explanation:
I hope this helped you. :)
Πir happend when they were looking for frogs and living with the grandma
Answer:
1. Bats and cats: <em>Homology</em>
2. Whales and sharks: <em>Analogy</em>
Explanation:
In Biology, homology refers to <u>the similarity of features from different species of organisms that share a common ancestor</u>. This is the opposite of analogy, which refers to <u>a feature that has a similar function but is not derived from a common ancestor</u>.
In this case, bats and cats have forelimbs adapted for locomotion. This is a case of homologous characters because they both are descendants of tetrapods - four-limbed animals. Therefore, even though cats and bats look completely different, they both share a similar feature: forelimbs, a characteristic feature from their common early mammalian ancestors.
On the other hand, whales (mammals) and sharks (fish) do not share a common ancestor. So, the fins are analogous structures: both have a similar function because both have adapted to an aquatic environment but they have completely separate evolutionary origins.
Answer:
It gave people the right to elect members of Parliament.
Explanation:
It could not be a democratic republic because regardless of having a Bill of Rights or not, England was a monarchial government. It could not be that the king could pass laws without Parliament’s approval because the Bill of Rights did the exact opposite; it limited the King’s power. It did not allow Roman Catholics to be kings or queens because it was never explicitly stated on the Bill of Rights. It did give the people individual rights, the rights to elect members to Parliament.
