In the early 1700's South Carolina raised the import duties on slaves coming from the West Indies, which most likely resulted in C; More slaves being imported directly from Africa. This is so because it was relatively cheaper to import directly from Africa opposed to the West Indies.
Semantics is the study of word meanings.
It is one part of linguistics, other being syntax: the study of sentence structure, phonology and phonetics: the study of sounds, morphology: the study of word structures and pragmatics: the study of actual use of language.
Answer: from the text
Explanation: “The more I read, the more I was led to abhor and detest my enslavers. I could regard them in no other light than a band of successful robbers, who had left their homes, and gone to Africa, and stolen us from our homes, and in a strange land reduced us to slavery.” Douglass’s essay was published in 1845, a time of hardships for colored peoples. The majority of colored people were enslaved and those who were free usually were illiterate. Given these facts and the caliber of Douglass’s language and diction as exemplified in the lines above, who is this essay geared toward/ whose support is Douglass attempting to rally?
$10-a-barrel oil is one of the course of these shortfalls
Shortfall refers to any situation wherein there is a negative discrepancy among earnings/sales and expenses. Shortfalls might also stand up for many different motives – which include seasonal issues, cost overruns on projects, or slow collection of credit sales invoices.
revenue Shortfall means, for any Earn-Out period, the amount by which target sales boom for that Earn-Out period exceeds actual sales boom for that Earn-Out period, if any.
the sales volume would not increase at the projected level, a shortfall results. this will not result in a loss, due to the fact there likely are fewer expenses associated with the fewer sales.
Learn more about Revenue Shortfall here
brainly.com/question/14554780
#SPJ4
Answer:
The Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder, (2013) held that the coverage formula set forth in Section 4(b) of the Act was unconstitutional, and as a consequence, no jurisdictions are now subject to the coverage formula in Section 4(b) or to Sections 4(f)(4) and 5 of Act.
Explanation: