Course hero what’s the difference between a correlational study and an experimental study?

Situation #2: imagine that you are a newspaper editor in columbus, oh in 1863. the civil war has been dragging on for more than two years already and shows no signs of ending soon. you are aware that many black males are willing to enlist in the union army but you fear that they may be mistreated and abused by the majority of soldiers on either side in this war. write a one-page letter (double spaced) editorial for tomorrow's edition of the newspaper. the topic is military service in the union army by free african american males. in your editorial, take a clear position for or against having black men join the fight. be sure to give reasons for whatever position you choose to take.

Some european explorers sailed west looking for the passage to india

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.