I'm thinking B. But could be wrong:/
The bill of rights,location of the capital were two off them I believe
Answer: Bias by omission.
- <em>Bias by omission</em> refers to the exclusion of relevant information. In this case, removing mention of the British would be a bias of omission.
- <em>Bias by source choice</em> happens when an author only looks at a certain type of source, especially when this type is likely to confirm the opinion of the author.
- <em>Unintentional bias</em> occurs when the author's personal beliefs or ideology are unconsciously introduced in the text.
- <em>Bias by arrangement</em> happens when a story is purposely designed to be more accessible to readers, therefore minimizing the impact of other stories. This happens when the media covers only one type of stories.
(Take this response with a grain of salt.)
I personally think that neither should determine that. Both questions are unable to determine whether the religion is true; so why would it be used to determine whether or not people have the right to follow it. However, putting that aside, I think the best answer would be how good their followers are. It doesn't determine whether the religion is true or not but it rids us of the toxic religions that spread negative messages. Considering how much racism, homophobia, transphobia, and sexism is in most religions it'd be interesting to see most religions cease.
Including commonly followed religions like Catholicism.
Cortes was able to defeat the Aztecs because of his warfare and the skills that they were able to improve back when they defeated the Moores
