Explanation:
Feudal Economy is the the system where all land ownership belongs only to the King. This system was existed particularly in the time of middle ages, where only the King had all the land of that country/kingdom and only he could give land to whomever he thought worthy. Kings usually allotted the land to the noble and lords. Nobles and Lords were the people who fought on the king's behalf. Manors was the specific term used when king give the land to the nobles and lords. King occupied highest level in that system. The peasants or the serfs were at the very lowest part in that economy.
I assume that the question here refers to the process of evolution. The "helpful variations" are small mutations that allow the organism to have a small advantage over other - and this organism can then pass this variation to its children better than other organisms, meaning that with time, more organisms will have it. This will accumulate over time and the percentage of organisms with this mutation will increase.
Answer:John is an: Underemployment
Explanation:
When an employee is hired into a job that will not require the use of all their skills and education.
Underemployment is categorised into:
Visible underemployment
Visible underemployment are the employees who work for lesser hours in their respective field. Although they may want to work fully time but they don't find the full time job so they end up taking part time jobs just to survive
Invisible underemployment
Under this underemployment people are employed into full time jobs but still these jobs don't require the use of their skills. John is under this underemployment because he is frustrated that his new job doesn't take advantage of his skills.
With the first one,you're going to want to use Ethos,or the appeal to emotions,for this to work. I would say this: There is an extent to which someone can be punished. If somebody committed murder,the death penalty,or more politely called "Capital Punishment",would honestly have no effect on them. It does not truly give them a chance to dwell on their actions and how they messed up someone's life. Not only that,but you also become a murderer if an innocent man is found guilty of a murder he didn't commit,which makes you no better than a murderer. Worse in fact because at least the person who actually did kill someone did it them selves and not with an executioner. I don't support Capital punishment because that puts someone else's blood on my hands.
As for the second one...I'd say this: By nature,humans are social creatures. We desire human contact and interaction. In fact,we NEED it in order to function normally. Capital Punishment only supports the tradition of "An Eye For An Eye And A Tooth For A Tooth." If you really want to punish someone,don't kill them physically,but instead mentally and socially. If you take away someone's ability to interact with people,it causes them to think back on their mistakes and it leaves them with no other choice but to confront their bad choices. Capital Punishment gets it over with quickly with no time to repent or ask for forgiveness,but life in prison with no chance of parole unless proven mentally capable by a team of psychologists,is by far the worst punishment you could ever give someone.
