Hi!! please help me on this question <3 The collapse of the Ottoman Empire following World War I negatively impacted the Middle East/Southwest Asia. Which of these BEST explains why the collapse caused negative results?
A) The Ottoman collapse caused a lack of political unity in the region.
B) The Ottomans had supported the independence of states in the region.
C) The Ottoman sympathizers struck at military targets operated by Britain.
D) The Ottoman collapse allowed for greater Soviet influence in the Middle East.

In writing about her findings in a brazilian shantytown, nancy scheper-hughes’s account of alto do cruzeiro provides a window into the terrible toll of nonconsensual organ harvesting among the poor, as well as how she herself changed over time. how might an anthropologist justify the publication of this ethnographic research when considering the problem of ethnographic authority? a. all of the poor must be given an equal voice, thus polyvocality is justification. b. anthropologists are themselves changed in fieldwork, and so honest reflexivity is justification. c. the horrific conditions made it impossible to ignore, and since she obtained informed consent, this is justification. d. authoritative writing asks us to consider what right we have to report, thus a moral challenge is justification.

Why does the supreme court only listen to a small percentage of cases every year?

Norman jones, an economic historian at the university of utah, has described the views of the ancient greek philosopher aristotle on interest: aristotle defined money as a good that was consumed by use. unlike houses and fields, which are not destroyed by use, money must be spent to be used. there- fore, as we cannot rent food, so we cannot rent money. moreover, money does not reproduce. a house or a flock can produce new value by use, so it is not unreasonable to ask for a return on their use. money, being barren, should not, therefore, be expected to produce excess value. thus, interest is unnatural. what did aristotle mean in arguing that money is “barren”? why would money being barren mean that lenders should not charge interest on loans? do you agree with aristotle’s reasoning? briefly explain.