Which is not a pseudoscience?
a. religion
b. ecology
c. superstitions
d. astrology

you can get banned on this website if you post your quizzes here. . . .

americans began to notice growing differences between the northern and southern sections of the country. there were more people living in cities in the north, which made it more urban. more people lived on farms in the south, which made it more rural. while many people were farmers in the northern states, there were now other ways to make a living, such as working in mechanical cotton gins factories manufacturing cloth, tools and other goods. people in the north supported high tariffs on goods imported from europe because the extra cost encouraged people to “buy american” instead. in the southern states, planters did not like tariffs because they sold most of their production to europe and bought their tools from there as well. southerners believed the protective tariff was something that only northern factory owners keep their profits high. so the southern politicians came up with an idea. they would opt out. they would simply ignore the protective tariff. it was ‘null and void’ in south carolina. the state would not collect the taxes on goods imported into south carolina, no matter what the president said they had to do. this decision led to the nullification crisis.

answer:   option a) glucagon was secreted by his pancreas before he ate the cookies because blood glucose was low. insulin was secreted after he ate the cookies because his blood glucose was high.

explanation:

"1. it should be, it has been for about 20 years, and it's really not much different in the end than breeding animals to have particular traits. there are always concerns about genetically engineered animals/plants affecting the environment in unexpected negative ways, but i can't think of an example where the fears didn't turn out to be baseless.  

first, as you point out, it would be a great advance in pharmacology, to be able to tailor drugs and their doses to me. the pros involve better medical treatment. the cons involve privacy issues like insurance companies denying coverage to people with genetic risk factors. looking at dna markers wouldn't affect the frequency of genetic diseases, but it would allow detection of them earlier. and ok, actually i suppose that if people used this information to avoid having children with genetic diseases, some might decrease in frequency."