What happens to a problem-solving team after the assigned problem has been tackled?

Ratification of the constitution did not come easy. two groups fought over whether or not the constitution was a good government for us: the federalists and anti-federalists. if these factions existed today, which group do you think you would support? compose a paragraph explaining which group you would support. explain why you would support either group by including at least 3 examples of beliefs you support/disagree with.

Cooperation among oligopolies runs counter to the public interest because it leads to underproduction and high prices. in an effort to bring resource allocation closer to the social optimum, public officials attempt to force oligopolies to compete instead of cooperating. consider the following scenario: suppose that the presidents of two auto manufacturing companies exchange text messages in which they discuss jointly raising prices on their new lines of hybrid suvs. this illegal communication would violate which of the following laws? the sherman antitrust act of 1890 the robinson–patman act of 1936 the celler–kefauver act of 1950 the clayton act of 1914

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.