Answer:
A. Close proximity among Australia, New Zealand, and Britain allowed for easy communication and negotiation.
Explanation:
Considering the claim stated in the question, hence, among the following options, the statement that could be used as evidence in support of the claim that "Australia and New Zealand were more successful than other British colonies in gaining independence." is option A "Close proximity among Australia, New Zealand, and Britain allowed for easy communication and negotiation."
This is because a CLOSE PROXIMITY between Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand means these countries or colonies have a good rapport with Great Britain. Therefore, it was easier to negotiate their independence instead of going to war (for example USA) or series of agitation and protest to get their independence (for example India)
The correct answers are:
A. Society became more open, and women experienced greater freedom.
D. Women began to seek out new careers.
E. Women challenged old traditions by doing things such as changing their clothing style.
The statements above are how women’s roles in countries such as the United States and Britain changed after World War I.
Answer:
Yes.
Explanation:
Young women's attire drastically changed in a way that was often frowned upon by the elders. Women went to night clubs, wore make-up and fancy dresses, and shortened their hair. These were all uncommon things which led to accusations against their morals.
The Supreme Court was affirming the point that states (not the federal government) should be in charge of the voting procedures in their states.The Supreme Court decision you're referring to, which invalidated pre-clearance conditions, was Shelby County v. Holder (2013). "Pre-clearance" meant that certain states, according to the Voting Rights Acts of 1965, had to get approval in advance from federal authorities for any changes they made to their state regulations regarding voting. That standard had been applied to several states because they had displayed discriminatory practice in their voting laws. The decision in Shelby County v. Holder held that the federal government could not keep applying that requirement on the basis of decades-old data.
I recently posted another answer on Shelby County v. Holder, which you can check out too. Read more on Brainly.com -
brainly.com/question/9069264#readmore
Carolina, it split into north and south carolina
