What would be thoreau’s response to his own rhetorical question: "how happens it that he who is said to enjoy these things (luxurious homes) is so commonly a poor civilized man, while the savage, who has them not, is rich as a savage? " explain thoreau’s comment that, "many are concerned about the monuments of the west and the east, to know who built them. for my part, i should like to know who in those days did not build them, - who were above such trifling." to his offer of a mat, thoreau, "declined it, preferring to wipe my feet on the sod before my door. it is best to avoid the beginnings of evil." obviously the word "evil" is hyperbole, but what is his point? why would a mat be "evil"? according to thoreau, how should man live? answer in three words, including the word "and". what should each person do rather than copy another? what is thoreau’s view of philanthropists? is thoreau a philanthropist? why or why not? what, according to thoreau, motivates people to engage in philanthropy? on what should man not fix his heart?

i disagree that there is little difference between adult female development and adult male development. sociological studies comparing female and male pathways to adulthood, revelead that there are sustancial differences between them. particularly, female and male differ from timing of marriage, when they began to live with children and the likelihood of combining wife/husband and parent roles.

debating and finalizing the detail of the policy

even though you have attached neither the chart nor the generalizations, i have located them online. the right answer is d, since they are asking you about a generalization. you can only infer from the chart that between 2008 and 2009 the number of employed workers decreased significantly (from over 115 millions to 107 millions approximately), which signals some type of economic crisis.  

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.