Answer:
the Tigris and Euphrates rivers
Explanation:
Mesopotamia was a very fertile and good area located around and between the two rivers Tigris and Euphrates. The first civilization rose here and many developments and settlements were made. Many technological breakthroughs were made in this area and small towns developed. New agriculture and watering methods were implemented which led to population increase.
The Enabling Act was a 1933 Weimar Constitution amendment that gave the German Cabinet – in effect, Chancellor Adolf Hitler – the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag<span>.
</span>The Enabling Act gave Hitler plenary powers<span>. It followed on the heels of the </span>Reichstag Fire Decree<span>, which abolished most civil liberties and transferred state powers to the Reich government. The combined effect of the two laws was to transform Hitler's government into a legal dictatorship.
</span>
Hope this helped! :)
Answer: B: To expand the meaning of the word American to include all people.
In these lines, Kennedy addresses the question of civil rights, and in particular, the rights of black students to attend white institutions. He implies this in the sentence: "It ought to be possible, therefore, for American students of any color to attend any public institution they select..." The reason why he mentions the troops in his speech is because he wanted to make an analogy between the troops and the students. He argues that if black soldiers are considered American enough to fight abroad, then black students should be considered American enough to attend any college they desire.
Think about the idea here and you'll see how the idea of "cost" is inevitable in every decision. (It's true not just of governments, but of our own decisions too -- but we'll focus on governments here.)
Let's say the government decides it wants all citizens to have access to health care. Well, that's going to cost dollars to pay for that health care. Where will those dollars come from?
Let's say the government decides, in response to school shootings or other acts of gun violence, to ban certain types of guns or ammunition. That costs something to the gun dealers who were making money off those sales (and they'll object). Or let's say the government decides to do further and deeper background checks on all gun buyers. Well, that will cost something in terms of personnel and processes to accomplish all the background checks. Or let's say the government decides to increase mental health screenings and treatment because persons with mental illness issues may become violent and dangerous to society. That will cost much in order to organize and carry out better mental health intervention across the country.
I focused on just a couple issues there (health care, gun control). But the same principle holds on anything government does. You can think about your own examples that you'd want to use. Anything the government decides to do comes with some sort of costs attached. That doesn't mean it's bad to make such decisions -- it just means we need to count the cost and invest our efforts where they will have the best benefit.
