My history teacher showed us two primary sources. One is an account written by an educated slave under Egyptian rule. The account describes the Egyptians as cruel and merciless. The second account was written by an Egyptian priest. This account describes the Egyptians as peaceful and deeply religious people. Use what you know about historical perspective and answer the question below.

Consider the perspective of the slave and why he would describe the Egyptians like he did. Also consider the perspective of the priest and why he would describe the Egyptians like he did. The accounts seem like opposites, but could both accounts be right? In the space provided construct a response analyzing the two perspectives like a historian would. The rewritten perspective should treat both accounts as being true.

30 points in a citizens elect the president as head of government separately from the legislature. question 1 options: parliamentary democracy communist state presidential democracy autocratic state question 2 (1 point) this form of government has only a single political party. question 2 options: communist democratic autocratic parliamentary question 3 (1 point) this is a government controlled by one person with absolute power. question 3 options: communist democratic autocratic parliamentary question 4 (1 point) a government is a government system where all citizens that choose to vote have a say in their government. question 4 options: communist democratic autocratic theocracy question 5 (1 point) in a the people elect the legislature, and the legislature chooses the head of government. question 5 options: parliamentary democracy communist state presidential democracy autocratic state

Supreme court. jim, who is a bit eccentric, says that he is fed up with the way a certain employer in his town treats employees and that he is going to sue that employer in an effort to improve matters. jim also says that he is going to start his case at the appellate court level, skipping over all those "lesser" judges. jim says that those justices will surely hear him out and that he will also seek a jury. although he is not a lawyer, jim believes that the offenses of the employer are so severe that the justices will appreciate his attempt to make things better for the employees involved. will jim get a jury at the appellate court level?

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.