C.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
<span>Assuming that this is referring to the same list of options that was posted before with this question, <span>the correct response would be that Churchill was imploring the British people to "never give in" in terms of their fight with Nazi Germany, since at times this fight seemed almost un-winnable. </span></span>
Considering the available options, the statement that represents a direct causal relationship is that "<u>Sue's desire for higher education made her willing to bear the opportunity cost of going to college</u>."
<h3>What does the opportunity cost?</h3>
Opportunity cost is the loss of one choice when another alternative is taken as the choice.
Therefore, given that Sue chose to attend college rather than join the workforce, the direct causal relationship here is that Sue's desire for higher education made her willing to bear the opportunity cost of going to college.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that the correct answer is option B.
Learn more about Opportunity Cost here: brainly.com/question/481029
Answer:
Yes, because the negligence of the lumber mill's employee was a cause of the landowner's injury.
Explanation:
The governor of an arid western state owned a vacation home and permitted his son to have a party there. At the end of the night the son failed to properly extinguish a bonfire that he and his friends had built, and within a few hours, wind-blown cinders had spread the fire to the trees east of the lodge. At the same time several miles away, a worker at a lumber mill was making emergency repairs to a pipe running between two mill buildings. He did not notice some of the sparks from his welding torch land in a pile of dried lumber and catch fire, and he failed to check the area after he was finished. By the time the fire was noticed by another employee, it was out of control. The wind blew both fires toward a landowner's hunting lodge. They merged a mile away and shortly thereafter totally consumed the lodge.For political reasons, the landowner did not bring a lawsuit against the governor or his son. He did, however, file a lawsuit against the lumber mill, alleging that its employee's negligence caused the destruction of his lodge. Evidence at trial established that either fire alone would have destroyed the lodge as well.Can the landowner recover from the lumber mill?
Yes, because the negligence of the lumber mill's employee was a cause of the landowner's injury.
