There are two major factors that stand out to me. . .
1.When Cortes made his journey to sail from across the ocean many knew the trip would be long and with it taking so long before reaching land, many of his men would not be able to bathe or clean themselves resulting in much of the crew getting sick and sharing it among each other on the boat. Upon landing on the Aztec coast him and his men would bring various diseases that would severely weaken the surrounding native tribes, as disease spread rapidly it would eventually topple the Inca and Aztec empires making them easier to conquer.
2.Cortes was from Spain as we all know and at that point in time Spain had the upper hand when it came to weaponry, Cortes and his men carried musket rifles and crossbows, each of em also wore a metal chest piece as armor. it was sturdy and able to easily brush off the Aztec weapons since they only had primitive weapons such as stone clubs, stone tipped arrows or spears. .Aztecs also did not have body armor like the Spaniards wore which left them at a huge disadvantage in combat as the metal armor could deflect most Aztec weaponry making them even easier to conquer.
hopefully this helps
Answer:
paper industries, forest products, lumbering and also mining
Hope you enjoy :)))))))))))
Answer:
The correct answer is devil's advocacy.
Explanation:
Devil's advocacy refers to a decision-making technique which used for the purpose of combating groupthink (making decisions as a group) One or more people from the group take up the role of devil's advocate and go on to pinpoint flaws and risks in the subject under consideration. As discussed in the question, it is used to defend unpopular or opposing alternatives for the sake of debate.
The benifits are that congress can full fill their powers that allow them to manage our country.
Answer:
The answer is C. It could not explain higher-level cognitive processes.
Explanation:
One of the main reasons why the behaviorist perspective lost its appeal and other perspectives, such as humanism, gained more strenght, is that, by explaining human behavior only in terms of responses to a stimulus, it failed to explain higher-level cognitive processes. It didn't provide the theoretical tools to analyze behavior that was not motivated by a stimulus or a reward or behavior that took place even after knowing that their would be a punishment.
