Humphreys' collecting data for the Tearoom Trade study under the pretense that he was a lookout is an example of a violation of the principle of:

question is unclear.

i can't sorry.

post the full question so i can .

when studying cause and effect, historians usually group the causes into different categories. for example, cultural causes reflect how a society’s literature and art convey the way the society saw itself in relation to the rest of the world. another resource that historians use to understand society is pop culture, which tells them the trends and ideas that are preferred by the common people. when studying cause and effect, it’s important to remember multiple causation, or the idea that an effect could have several causes and vice versa.  

the correct option is “cultural causes” since art and literature are related to the culture of a place. culture is determined by literature, art, music.

the correct option is “pop culture” since it reflects the likes and ideas of common people whereas the rest of the options do not focus on common people.  

the correct option is “multiple causation” since it refers to the idea that events are caused by multiple reasons, not just a single one.  

they died because of a disease during the first spanish colonies.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is