In the ruling by the supreme court in regents of the university of california v bakke ( 1978 ) : ( A ) affirmative action programs do not violate the constitution
<h3>Regents of the university of california v. bakke (1978)</h3>
In the ruling the supreme court ruled that the use of affirmative action programmes which allows the admission of minority applicants in the universities is a constitutional process in certain circumstances, while the use of racial quotas for the admission into universities was ruled as unconstitutional.
Hence we can conclude In the ruling by the supreme court in regents of the university of california v bakke ( 1978 ) : ( A ) affirmative action programs do not violate the constitution
Learn more Regents of the university of california v. bakke (1978) :brainly.com/question/412541
#SPJ1
Answer:
Throughout the passage, “Why We Should Work Less,” by Richard Schiffman, the author argues that Americans need to work fewer hours because of the impact of “grueling work schedules.” The author crafts his argument by using personal anecdotes of his friends in the workforce, presenting quantitative data, and using harsh ...
Explanation:
<h2>I HOPE THIS HELPS YOU</h2>
Answer:
have immediate access to the extinguisher, know how to actuate the unit, and know how to apply the agent effectively. Attempting to extinguish even a small fire carries some risk. Hopefully this is what you were looking for.
Answer: C. They will have more time to manage his mother's care.
Explanation:
A single income option means that only one of them will be working and only one source of income will be used to maintain all three of them including Daniel's mother. This will most definitely result in them having less disposable income and less financial income in general.
Also the scenario painted made no mention of a baby so option D is incorrect. The most likely option in C which makes sense because with one of them staying home to take care of the mother, they will have time to be able to take care of her better.
