Answer:
Terms in this set (10)
Citizens eighteen (18) and older (can vote). You don't have to pay (a poll tax) to vote. Any citizen can vote. (Women and men can vote.)
Explanation:
It will depend on how many feet are in 162 inches.
<h3>Inch-to-feet conversion</h3>
According to metrics, 12 inches = 1 foot
Hence, 162 inches will be: 162/12 = 13.5 ft
However, the maximum height that the bridge can accommodate according to the illustration is 12 ft 5 inches.
13.5 ft is significantly more than 12 ft 5 inches.
Thus, it is highly unlikely that the truck can pass safely under the bridge.
More on metric conversion can be found here: brainly.com/question/10943201
#SPJ1
Answer:
to describe
Explanation:
Based on the scenario being described within the question it can be said that in this research the Professor is utilizing the goal of to describe. This refers to trying to describe a specific behavior or phenomenon in order to use that description as a basis for learning more about that specific behavior or phenomenon. Which in this scenario would be the children complaining about not getting a turn on the carousel.
The smoke Zack exhales, of which a nonsmoker = like Paul is exposed to is known as: <u>secondhand smoke.</u>
<h3>Meaning of Secondhand Smoke</h3>
Smoking is an unhealthy habits that health practitioners have warned can affect the health of an individual.
However, you can also be a passive smoker when you inhale the smoke from the burning cigarettes of people nearby.
The smoke exhaled by smokers of cigarette, cigar, or pipe of which you inhale is referred to as: <u>secondhand smoke.</u>
- Therefore, the smoke Zack exhales, of which a nonsmoker = like Paul is exposed to is known as: <u>secondhand smoke.</u>
Learn more about secondhand smoke on:
brainly.com/question/956548
Answer? 1) Yes, it is a bit ironic. If a company has an Ethics program that's comprehensive enough, executives should not have to be caught in business criminal activities.
2.) First let's talk about Ethics programs. These are basically programs that embody the business philosophies of a company such that every stakeholder understand how business is run in the company. It basically defines to employees, staff, investors, vendors and customers the rules of Business Ethics as defined by the firm, from the maximum amount of tips to collect from customers to how intimate employees get with clients so that there's no confusion. Now, all this is to clarify but the question here is how effective was the program if criminal activity was discovered? It's simple. The most comprehensive Ethics programs can't control human circumstantial behaviour. As clear as rules may be, they are always still broken. And this is because, with humans, there an infinite number of things to put into consideration, most of which won't always follow rules. One may be 100% compliant with said rules but find themselves weak to give in at some point for any possible reason the person deemed more important than upholding the companies ethics. In other words, these rules are held by the people it binds and the delivery will always be subjective. Whenever it is deemed unfavorable to uphold, it most likely will be dropped.
Therefore, it might have been the most effective and comprehensive Ethics program in the world but only as effective as the executives demmed it subjectively.
