The outcome will be forecasted using the prescriptions of the law of demand. If the price of a good decreases, this will have the opposite effect on the quantity demanded by consumers, that will increase. More people would be willing to purchase the product at a lower price
In conclusion the law of demand states how price and quantity will always move in opposite directions. The only exception to the law would occur with Giffen type goods.
Answer:
The Great Compromise was a compromise between large states and small states on the formation of a new constitution.
Explanation:
After American independence the Articles of Confederation resulted in many challenges in the smooth functioning of the state, and a convention was called to discuss the fomation of a new constitution also known as the Constitutional Convention 1987. Two alternatives were proposed: first was the Virginia Plan, and second the New Jersey Plan. According to the Virginia Plan there would be three branches of government namely legislature, executive and judiciary. Legislature would consist of two houses: upper and lower. And representation in these houses would be based on population. On the other hand the New Jersey Plan also proposed three branches of government. It, however, called for a single house legislature with powers of trade and taxation with each state having one vote. Small states opposed Virginia Plan; Virginia was a large state. Whereas large states opposed the New Jersey Plan; New Jersey was a small state. In the final plan a compromise was reached also known as the Great Compromise. According to the final plan the legislature would consist of two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. Each state would have equal members in Senate; in the House of Representatives the member would be based on population. The money bill would originate from House of Representative; this satisfied the large states. This plan also served the interests of small states by giving them more seats in upper house than they could otherwise have.
The correct answer to this question is "the United States refused to get involved when mujahideen forces overthrew the Nicaraguan regime." Because Somoza refused to improve his human rights policies in the 1970s, the United States refused to get involved when mujahideen forces overthrew the Nicaraguan regime.
According to this ruling, the government can regulate speech if the words that were spoken (or printed) represent a "clear and present danger" to American society.
This ruling came as a consequence of the case <em>Schenck v. United States (1919)</em>, in which the general secretary of the U.S. Socialist Party opposed the implementation of the military draft. He distributed pamphlets encouraging people to oppose the draft. The unanimous decision was that his words represented a clear and present danger to the country, and therefore his arrest was justified.
