Answer:
1. Klu Klux Klan and the union
2. Happiness
3. I am not sure on this answer sorry.
4. Powerful
5. My best answer would be the Klu Klux Klan
Explanation:
I tried my best. If you have any more questions let me know.
Answer:
Explanation:
1) How many days ago did you complete it?
2) How are you letting your visitors see you this badly?
3) Why can't we talk?
4) Why don't you look happy?
5) How did you feel when he/she treated you like that?
6) What made you so scared?
7) How well can you hear me?
8) Why aren't you listening to me?
9) How many differences can you spot?
Answer with Explanation:
The evaluation of every matter requires a framework based on a useful ideas that are required for a better judgement for deriving a solution like if we want to resolve a mathematical problem, then we will use mathematical functions like +, -, *, etc so that we are able to solve the question because these are the ideas that are based on a useful ideas (Logic). Likewise when we want to assess whether the argument is good or not, we will require an ethical standard framework to evaluate the good in the argument.
So yes, I agree that ethics is an essential element of a good argument because it is the framework which decides which argument is good or not. These ethical values in a particular argument is a move from not good to good argument. Greater the ethical values in an argument the more is the argument good as per ethical principles.
The tropical rain forests is the most common vegetation throughout Latin America.
Answer:
A correlation is only a mathematical means of describing the relationship between variables. When it is a positive correlation, it means when the value of one increases, for example, the value of the other variable also increases or when one decreases, so does the other. A negative correlation would show that as one variable increases in value, the other decreases. These relationships are non-causal as you're not manipulating variables to control them to see what is causing this relationship. Sometimes, non-causal covariance (or variables that don't have an effect on each other vary cooincidentally in a pattern-like fashion, when there is actually another variable causing the relationship going on.
Explanation:
In the case of this example, it is doubtful that having money causes you to have a higher grade point average. So while we see an increase in grade point average with those who have high income it could be due to other factors, like people with more money have access to learning tools, tutors and other things that people with less money don't have access to. So it is access to tools, not money that is actually causing a difference. There are likely dozens if not hundreds of other potential confounded variables that could be causing this observation.
