Vilma's research documents the intended and unintended consequences of racial discrimination in the us. vilma's research is in line with:

The kansas-nebraska act allowed the territories of kansas and nebraska to decide the issue of slavery by popular sovereignty. the people who lived in these territories would be able to vote on whether slavery would be allowed there. what effect did this have on kansas? a. settlers voted to allow slavery only in half of the territory. b. kansas became a slave state and joined the confederacy. c. settlers held a series of debates to them decide. d. pro-slavery settlers fought against anti-slavery settlers.

Which of the following statements most accurately describes the requirement for the documentation of minors’ assent to participate in research? parents must approve written documentation.documentation is required unless waived by an irb.to protect minors documentation is always required.federal regulations do not require the documentation of minors’ assent.

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.