subject
Social Studies, 21.06.2021 15:50 cramirezorozco392

Ais a thinking strategy that may lead to a solution to a problem, but sometimes may lead to errors in conclusions. In contrast, an is a rule based thinking strategy, that if followed correctly will guarantee a solution to a problem.

ansver
Answers: 2

Another question on Social Studies

question
Social Studies, 22.06.2019 16:30
What is the rule relating the ratio of marginal utility to prices of two goods at the optimal choice? explain why, if this rule does not hold, the choice cannot be utility-maximizing.
Answers: 2
question
Social Studies, 22.06.2019 17:10
Where do the majority of cases heard by the supreme court originate?
Answers: 1
question
Social Studies, 22.06.2019 19:30
Which is the best conclusion that can be drawn regarding the status of african-americans in the south in the late 1800s? a) african-americans made tremendous political, social, and economic advancements during the reconstruction era. b) passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the u.s. constitution guaranteed equal status and rights for all african-americans. c) the reconstruction policies enacted by the federal government were highly effective in african-american citizens transition to life after slavery. d) although african-americans had equal rights under federal law they were still economically, politically, and socially inferior to whites in the south during the reconstruction era.
Answers: 1
question
Social Studies, 23.06.2019 06:00
Ahusband who believed that his wife was having an affair with his brother hired an arsonist to burn down the brother's house. they planned for the husband to take his brother to a ballgame so that the arsonist would be able to set the house on fire without detection. after the husband and brother left for the ballgame, however, the arsonist decided to abandon the plan and immediately left town without doing anything further. when the husband returned from the ballgame with the brother, he saw the house still standing and blurted out what was supposed to have happened. the husband and the arsonist were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit arson. at the arsonist's trial, his attorney argued that he was innocent of the conspiracy because he decided not to go ahead with the plan, and nothing criminal had in fact occurred.at common law, how should a jury find the arsonist? a not guilty of conspiracy, because going to a ballgame is not a criminal overt act.b not guilty of conspiracy, because the husband, not the arsonist, committed the overt act.c guilty, because the husband executed his part of the plan.d guilty, because the arsonist agreed to set the brother's house on fire.
Answers: 2
You know the right answer?
Ais a thinking strategy that may lead to a solution to a problem, but sometimes may lead to errors i...
Questions
Questions on the website: 13722363