Answer:
I haven't studied this, I think, so this is off of what I think it might be, I suppose.
Explanation:
A: If it's widespread, it might be harder to govern everyone rather than if it was more compact. If it's bigger, one center of power in one part might not be able to handle monitoring the entire country as there's al lot of space, so their influence might not be felt throughout the entire country and rather more in the areas closest to it. Like how people who lived in England were seemingly more loyal to the king, but in America, which was an ocean away, more people seemingly felt and expressed their lack of connection to a ruler so far away.
B: If it's wide-spread enough, there might be different ideas of grouping based on it. If a river runs through it, for example, it could lead to a "east of the river" versus "west of the river" difference in how they identify. An example of this is in Italy where the North and South have differences between them or how in the U.S. there had been/is the idea of "The North vs. The South" or even "The North vs. The South vs. The Midwest vs. The West Coast".
Blizzards, torrential rainstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, flu epidemics,
domestic terrorism, earthquakes, nuclear war, and municipal bankruptcy
would all be pretty devastating.
The correct options are:
- Improved engines; engines were improved significantly so that they can have the same power and agility but by using less fuel.
- Cleaner burning fuels; it has been invested a lot of time and money into improving the fuels and making them as effective as possible but also removing or lowering the most dangerous components towards the environment.
- Catalytic converters; this devices for exhaust emission control manage to convert the toxic gasses and polutants into less toxic pollutants by managing to catalyze a redox reaction.
