C. it was able to use military bases in allied territories i think
Answer:
For the first, I would say being poorly represented.
For the second, ignorance and morals.
Explanation:
A lot of people have been raised to demand a change when they see injustices, some might go at it in a violent way, others might approach it in a more peaceful way. One thing you have to know about making big decisions, is that you will never please everyone. Someone is always going to be mad. It depends on their moral values as people. If you saw something that you thought was morally wrong, you would be upset too. They have tried peaceful protests and weren't heard, now they choose to incite violence because they have a voice and are represented in the media that way.
It all leads down to morals. The media says that if you aren't for it, you're automatically against it. If something the media does or activists do doesn't allign with people's morals, they choose the complete opposite because they think that's their only option.
Answer: it depends what you are talking about what documents are you trying to argue. But here is my shot in trying to help you make your argument clear that you are for the topic then use that information to write an argument against that topic.
Explanation: meaning if you are trying to argue let’s say the Indian removal act you would write why you are for it and then write why you are against it.
Answer:
A. They were extremely precise and successful in every attack.
Explanation:
Depth charges are quite literally explosives in a barrel that sink to a set depth before exploding. They wouldn't be 100% accurate due to them tumbling as they went down into the water. You usually needed at least a couple of Depth charges before you could knock out a Jerry (slang word for German during world war 2, fun fact!) U-Boat submarine, and this still applies today.
