The correct answer to this open question is the following.
You did not include the previous activity, so we do not know what you are talking about. However, we can comment on general terms about the relevance of the word INSTRUMENTAL.
In simple terms, instrumental means something that has the utmost importance in the consequence of something. For instance, the performance of an individual on any given task. If the individual makes a great contribution, accomplished many things in the company, it is said that its performance was instrumental to accomplish the goals.
When we use the word instrumental we are using an adjective to refer to something that was "very important" or "determinant."
Answer:
e) 200,000
Explanation:
Researches have highlighted the role of alcohol in cases of sexual assaults. The statistics also bring into notice that the chances of sexual assaults with women are five times more than men. The consumption of alcohol restricts the mind of the consumers to think only about the limited information. The flow of communication witnesses a fall and therefore chances of sexual assaults rise among such groups. The perpetrators are charged for their acts of sexual assault.
Answer:
reactive
Explanation:
Societies who made reactive change only make it in order to adapt Rather than do it for a certain cause or principles.
In the example above, BP's already know that their method of over exploitation could possess a risk for oil spilling, and yet they did not make the necessary effort to prevent it.
After the explosion occurred and the spilled oil damaged the nearby environment, BP decided to make a change by containing surface oil and Utilizing chemical oil dispersal to separate the oil that is spilled underwater.
BP made the change in reaction after the accident occured, not before. Which is why we consider this as a reactive change.
Answer:
The correct answer is A. James I and Charles I clashed with Parliament.
Explanation:
Option D is wrong because James I and Charles I did actually believe in the divine right of kings and that only God could criticize their actions or direct their reign.
Although the Tudors believed in divine right, the masked this belief as they thought that good relationship with the Parliament were a valuable thing. For example, they would seek approval of the Parliament to levy new taxes.
On the other hand, James I and Charles I had a tormentuous relationship with the Parliament. JamesI said that the very existence of Parliament was a sign of sedition in subjects who could dispute what a king may do with his divine power. Charles I went even further dissolving Parliament in 1629 and ruling without it for eleven years.
When politics come to get the stuff they are violating the 2nd admendmenyv