The U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has improved the nutritional status of families by giving eligible families special debit cards to purchase foods.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), originally known as the Food Stamp Program, is a federal initiative in the United States that helps low- and no-income persons purchase food. It is a federal assistance programme that is overseen by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the United States Department of Agriculture, though payments are dispersed by particular state departments throughout the country (e.g. Division of Social Services, Department of Health and Human Services, etc.).
Around 40 million Americans received SNAP assistance in 2018, with a cost of $57.1 billion. 16.7% of all children in America lived in households that received SNAP assistance in 2017, accounting for around 9.2% of all households receiving benefits.
learn more about U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance here
#SPJ4
Question: Should the United States Department of Defense keep the public informed of its anticipated scientific research programs by publicizing ahead of time the needs that would be served by each program?
Argument: No; some become critical of the government when widely publicized projects turn out unsuccessfully.
Question: Should the United States Department of Defense keep the public informed of its anticipated scientific research programs by publicizing ahead of time the needs that would be served by each program?
Argument: Yes; only a public so informed will support vital research and development activities with its tax dollars.
Question: Should the United States Department of Defense keep the public informed of its anticipated scientific research programs by publicizing ahead of time the needs that would be served by each program?
Argument: No; it is essential to keep certain military developments secret for national security and defense reasons.
Question: Do juries decide court cases fairly when one of the opposing parties is rich and the other is poor?
Argument: No; because rich people are more likely to settle their cases out of court.
Question: Do juries decide court cases fairly when one of the opposing parties is rich and the other is poor?
Argument: No; most jurors are more sympathetic to poor people than to the rich, and the jurors' sympathies affect their findings.
Answer:
1. Argument: No; some become critical of the government when widely publicized projects turn out unsuccessfully.
this is a strong argument.
2.Argument: Yes; only a public so informed will support vital research and development activities with its tax dollars.
This is also a strong Argument.
3.Argument: No; it is essential to keep certain military developments secret for national security and defense reasons.
This is a strong argument.
4. Argument: No; because rich people are more likely to settle their cases out of court.
This is a weak argument
5.Argument: No; most jurors are more sympathetic to poor people than to the rich, and the jurors' sympathies affect their findings.
This is a weak argument.
Explanation:
A strong argument is a non-deductive argument that succeeds in providing probable, but not conclusive, logical support for its conclusion.
A weak argument is a non-deductive argument that fails to provide probable support for its conclusion.
B) Austria
C) Manchuria
D) Rhineland
E) Sudetenland
F) Czechoslovakia
Answer:
None of the mentioned options is correct.
Explanation:
None of the mentioned options is correct as Haile Selassie was the ruler of Ethiopia. During his reign, Ethiopia was modernized, but never conquered any of the mentioned regions in here.
When I look at the mentioned options, it looks like the question should be which regions Hitler invaded, as he sent his troops to Austria, Sudetenland, Rhineland...
The characteristics of members of Congress changed over time with an ever-changing scope of power that they have. This in turn has also led to a change in the rank of their power.
Members of Congress can be referred to or considered as the important personnel that are an integral part of the American Congress that works in the governance of the society. Each of the members is granted with certain predefined powers.
The powers of the members of Congress, however, have changed over time with a given change in the Constitution due to various amendments. The amendments have not only led to a change in their powers, but also changed the rank that their powers had in the American governance.
Therefore, the significance regarding the members of the Congress has been aforementioned.
Learn more about the members of Congress here:
#SPJ2
Answer:
So the answer is the executive branch has changed greatly since adoption of the Constitution. This is mainly because of the amendments. Hope it helps!
B. loyalty
C. status
D. companionship
Answer: B) Loyalty
Explanation:
Unlike boys, adolescent girls are less likely to stress the importance of loyalty while making friends. This is because adolescent females don't really believe in the need of following certaing group rules and such things. Adolescent girls are more likely to keep an eye on stuff like close personal relationships. It's quality that they care about, not quantity.
Answer:
C. Status
Explanation:
Status is where a person stands within a group; the amount of respect, admiration, or importance given to a person.
They were concerned with putting too much power in the hands of state governors.
They were concerned with putting too much power in the hands of the Supreme Court.
They were concerned with putting too much power in the hands of the Congress.
Answer:
They were concerned with putting too much power in the hands of a single person.
Explanation:
When the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered together in 1787, one of their major concerns had to do with the Executive Branch, that is, the President of the United States. The Convention was creating a federal power out of scratch, and because of their experience fighting against what they considered British tyranny, they wanted to preserve the sovereignty of the states and freedom of individuals from an opressive government.
The executive power was a major concern for them, as they felt putting too much power in the hands of a single person might lead to abuses of power and the establishment of a tyranny. Their solution was to split the government powers among three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Through a system of checks and balances they would ensure none of them would become more powerful than the others.