Answer:
D. Each
Explanation:
Each because, All of my classes is interesting doesn't make sense or Few of my classes is interesting doesn't make sense or Most of my classes is interesting doesn't make sense either.So its Each of my classes is interesting it is.Few are,most are,many are,each is getting
Complete the following sentence so that the subject agrees with the verb
Each hope it helped u
There should be a comma between the words 'Wisconsin' and 'whose'
because since there is a peiod, the senences read
georgia o'kefe was an american painter from wisconson, meaning: georga o'keef, american, from wisconson
second one
whose detailed close-ups of flowers brought her world renown
this is a clause, the two sentances should be joined with a comma because theh though continues
the sentances should read:
"Georgia O'Keefe was an American painter from Wisconsin, whose detailed close-ups of flowers brought her world renown."
Answer:
actual malice, because Joan is a limited-purpose public figure as she voluntarily thrust herself into a public controversy
Explanation:
In law, actual malice is simply a requirement that is imposed on a particular person who claims her image is being tarnished by someone when filing a lawsuit for slander or libel. This will be found in a case where the defendant actually publishes a false statement (libel) or communicates it (slander), knowing fully well that the information is false and disregard for what such information can cause. Joan is actually a limited-purpose figure and decided to go public by making efforts to get her voice out there in a quest to build more bike lanes.
It seems that the BJP government’s decision to illegalise the sale of cattle for slaughter at animal markets has its roots in a PIL that quotes the five-yearly Gadhimai festival in Nepal, where thousands of buffaloes are taken from India to be sacrificed to ‘appease’ Gadhimai, the goddess of power.
The contradictions that emerge from cattle – here encompassing all bovines – slaughter rules in Nepal perplex many: despite being predominantly Hindu, animal sacrifice continues to be practised. Cow slaughter is explicitly prohibited even in Nepal’s new constitution since it is the national animal, yet the ritual sacrifice of buffaloes and the consumption of their meat is not frowned upon. There is also, in marked contrast to the Indian government’s blanket approach to cattle terminology, a lucid distinction between cows (both the male and female) and other ‘cattle’ species (such as buffaloes and yaks).
The emergence of this contradictory, often paradoxical, approach to cattle slaughter in Nepal is the result of a careful balancing act by the rulers of modern Nepal. The Shah dynasty and the Rana prime ministers often found themselves at a crossroads to explicitly define the rules of cattle slaughter. As rulers of a perceived ‘asal Hindu-sthan’, their dharma bound them to protect the cow – the House of Gorkha borrows its name from the Sanskrit ‘gou-raksha’ – but as they expanded into an empire, their stringent Brahminic rules came into conflict with des-dharma, or existing local customs, where cattle-killing was a norm. What followed was an intentionally ambiguous approach to cattle slaughter, an exercise in social realpolitik.