Why does anyone want control of the sea? It gave them a huge advantage over any enemy coming through the water, generally they could stop them before they even got close.
First, the political party usually consist of several members or representatives that had a certain value/preference in creating regulations.
The elctoral system is made so those parties will listen to the problems of all states beside the populated area only. Without this, the role of states with low population for the election would be insignificant
The answer is letter d. landlord's lien.
This is when the tenant cannot pay the rent and so the landlord seizes a
property that belongs to the tenant until the rent is paid. Not many states follow this anymore.
Answer:
The Gold Rush had significant impacts on the lives of Aboriginal people. The Mobs on whose Country gold was mined faced huge upheaval as a huge influx of settlers came to their land. Much of their country was destroyed by mining and Mob were further dispossessed from their lands.
Explanation:
yww :)
Answer:
Above passage DOES. commit a fallacy. Specifically, it DOES NOT commit the fallacy of equivocation, and it DOES commit the fallacy of amphiboly.
Explanation:
Both fallacies are related to ambiguity, but there is an important difference between them. Equivocation usually focuses on two possible meanings of the same word. Those two meanings are used in different parts of the argument, which invalidates it. Imagine, for instance, an argument that uses the word "right" meaning both "legal entitlement" and "correct". That would be an equivocation.
<u>Amphiboly usually focuses on the wrong interpretation given to a phrase or expression inside a sentence. Therefore, it is the context that allows for different interpretations to occur, even if the author's intention was not ambiguous. That is what we have in the passage we are analyzing here. "No shoes are better than Nikverse brand shoes" means that Nikverse are the best shoes. However, the context allowed for a different and erroneous interpretation. The person thought that "no shoes" referred to being barefoot. That is why he argues that "no shoes" being better is ridiculous. He thinks that wearing shoes is better than not wearing shoes, which was never the point the original author, Amber, meant.</u>