The first question should be <span>b) Shift to the right. Because there is an increase of a parcel of land and in the graph it is increased if shift to right.
The second question should be </span><span>a) shift to the left. Because there is a decrease of a parcel of land due to the obstruction and the graph would shift to left.</span>
Answer:
Prejudiced non discriminator
Explanation:
According to Robert Merton's typology of prejudice and discrimination, people are either <u>prejudiced or non prejudiced (this refers whether they have some preconceived opinions against people</u>) and either <u>discriminator or non discriminator (this refers whether they actually act in a discriminatory way or they don't) </u>
In the example, the coach does have prejudices because he dislikes African Americans but he doesn't act on them because he still hires them, therefore he is a non discriminator. Thus, he is a prejudiced non discriminator.
Answer:
Multiple causes took place that eventually caused many colonists to go against Great Britain.
Explanation:
By 1774, the year leading up to the Revolutionary War, there were many causes that continued to pile up. Parliament had been passing laws placing taxes on the colonists in America. There had been the Sugar Act in 1764, the Stamp Act the following year, and a variety of other laws that were meant to get money from the colonists for Great Britain. The colonists didn't like these laws.
Great Britain was passing these laws because of the French and Indian War, which had ended in 1763. That war, which had been fought in North America, left Great Britain with a huge debt that had to be paid. Parliament said it had fought the long and costly war to protect its American subjects from the powerful French in Canada. Parliament said it was right to tax the American colonists to help pay the bills for the war.
Most colonists disagreed. Parliament was elected by people living in England, and the colonists felt that lawmakers living in England could not understand the colonists' needs. The colonists felt that since they did not take part in voting for members of Parliament in England they were not represented in Parliament. So Parliament did not have the right to take their money by imposing taxes. "No taxation without representation" became the American rallying cry.
They're glued to their horses because they're nomadic, so they never completely settle in one place. I have never read Marcellinus before but that seems like the most logical answer. Hope thus helps!
Answer:
Multiple reimbursement scheme
Explanation:
What Donna Holbrook did is considered a case of multiple reimbursement. This means she requested the payment of the expense more than once. She first used the company credit card to buy the office supplies. This means that she didn’t use her own money because the credit card wasn’t hers. But a month after that, she used the receipt to request reimbursement from the company implying that she bought those supplies with her own money. By doing so, the company is paying twice for a purchase that was done only once. There’re also other kind of expense reimbursement schemes: <u>fictitious expense schemes</u> (when the expense is actually not real but made up by the employee); <u>overstated expense schemes</u> (when the employee inflates the expense in order to keep the extra money); and <u>mischaracterized expense schemes</u> (this occurs when the employee intends to get reimbursement for an expense that is personal and not related to the business).
