In 1966, the supreme court ruled in miranda v. arizona that a. suspects could not refuse to cooperate with police. b. local elections could be monitored by federal officials. c. states must permit interracial marriage. d. those in police custody had certain rights. e. school prayer was unconstitutional.

The correct answer is D. Those in police custody had certain rights

Explanation:

In Miranda vs Arizona, the supreme court specifically stated that if a person in custody is interrogated by the police, and does not consult with his or her lawyer about what to say druing the interrogation, then, nothing of what he or she says can be used by the prosecutor during trial.

For example, if John Smith is taken into custody, and does not have the legal knowledge to ask for lawyer to provide him with legal advice before interrogation, nothing of what he says to the police can be used by prosecutor Robert Robertson in order to incriminate him during trial.

every society, in order to meet the needs of it's people, has to answer three basic questions:

- what should we produce?

- how should we produce it?

- for whom should we produce it?

this questions must be answered in order to, option b, aid in production decisions.

every country can't produce everything, no matter how rich their land is. it may be a matter of technology, resources or geographical conditions. so, these three questions must be resolved in order to get the most of the production of each land.

hope this !

i heard they are taking it off i hope this isn't true but otherwise if it doesn't get taken off it will probably be in early december or early january of 2018-2019