The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options attached we can say the following.
Our resources are limited and should our local government use resources to build a new school, repair an old highway, or construct a new recreation center?
The economic question that this scenario refers to is about the benefits and the impact of the probable investment. Due to the limited resources, the decision-makers have to ask what is the priority, what is the cost-benefit relation, the economic cost. and the opportunity cost.
The decision-makers have to consider who is going to be the beneficiary of the project, the group that is going to benefit the most with this type of investment. That is how the local government has to decide if it builds a new school, repairs an old highway, or constructs a new recreation center.
Answer: 25%
Explanation: Children like Terrell are expected to spend some adequate hours to sleep,they sleep between twelve to thirteen hours to sleep daily,some times this sleep time is distorted or delayed trying to get the right sleeping position.
About 25% of the sleep time of children is used to process some of the information taken in during the course of the day.
I took the test and chose the one before me, which is wrong. The correct answer is; The layers were originally horizontal.
Answer: a. The McCain-Feingold Act violates freedom of speech.
Explanation:
Issue ads refer to a scenario where a candidate is named or discussed in relation to an issue without however, supporting or decampaigning an opponent.
This was restricted after the McCain-Feingold act of 2002. The Act restricted the use of Issue Ads within <em>30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election </em>for a person running for any Federal Office<em> </em>if the broadcast cost more than $10,000.
The Supreme Court ruled in its decision that unless the ad was expressly supporting or decampaigning a candidate, it should be exempted from the Act. The decision of the Court was also noteworthy as the Court declared it was against greater regulation of political speech.
A supporter of this Act would therefore probably seize upon this last part and say that the Act violates freedom of speech.
