Read the words spoken by an imaginary farmer in rome, and then answer the question. the threat of attack was always there. life in the countryside seemed safer than in the cities, especially since we grew our own food to survive. but we never knew when one of the neighboring tribes or invaders would come through our town. lord otho lived nearby. he was a strong leader with money to pay several soldiers who were no longer loyal to the roman empire. we fled to his manor to ask for his protection in return for part of our grain. when he agreed, we all felt safer in our homes than we had in a long time. what effect of the fall of the roman empire does the farmer describe? a. the decline in literacy b. the rise of the feudal system c. the diminished value of roman coins d. the use of the barter system e. the survival of a strong central government

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.