According to the question, Some negative effects of urbanization include the following.
- Crime
- Lack of Clean Water
- Fire
Urbanization brings about crime because it leads to less possibility of arrests and the less probability of recognition of crime suspect because families are less intact in urban areas.
Also the time of crimes committed in urban areas significantly differs from that in rural areas. some of the crimes include property thefts, automobile thefts, pick pocketing, cheating etc.
The process of rapid urbanization can bring about imbalance between water supply and demand and lead to higher likelihood of water shortage conditions.
With the spring up of factories and industries, natural water is polluted and hence there is lack of good water for human use.
Urban areas are more prone to deadly and severe fire outbreaks. this is due to the compact nature of buildings and the presence of industries that make use of elements which can lead to fire outbreak.
Learn more about Urbanization at brainly.com/question/12007420
#SPJ1
A. The Berlin Airlift
The Soviets couldn't counter it ,so they eventually gave up and reunited Berlin.
"<span>D. He was the first black man to be named a cabinet secretary" is not an accurate description of Benjamin Banneker. Banneker was an impressive and self-taught individual who corresponded with Jefferson and was fascinated with the world around him</span>
Weak defense in their industrial situation.
I hope this helps.
Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation:
