What did the japanese leaders do to catch up with other industrialized nations? committed to modernizing schools so that students could eventually learn the new industrial way of life developed japanese versions of trade and industry that differed from other nations resumed the preindustrialized ways of producing textiles and farming sent japanese observers to other nations to learn important industry advancements

    All of the strategies described are part of The Meiji Restoration, or Japan's Industrial revolution.

   The regained Imperial authority in 1868 needed to come along with changes that could make Japan a more sovereign country and it was crucial at the time for Japan to be  industrialized, not only to fill in the gap between the western technology and Japan's but to acquire battle power to conquer new territories.  

   That was made through various strategies, that would empower the people and the country, as well.

  First, making a public school system allowed the education to reach the young population without restrictions, as a trained technological workforce would be needed for the developing industrialization.

  The government, through the adaptation of the industrialized technics of the western for the financial and natural resources of Japan, created consumer industries as state companies, and with the state-based mining of its natural resources, Japan was able to develop it's own technology and boost the production of the goods they already exported, such as the silk, for example. Along with producing more, the Japanese could modernize it's transportation, improving the roads, implementing railways and developing ships. As some of the state companies were sold to big business conglomerates, there were the need for the development of new business strategies, that were imported by staff sent to other nations to study the industrial advancements.

   These strategies proved to be effective, so by the end of the Meiji era in 1912, the country was highly industrialized and had conquered many territories such as Korea, Manchuria, Taiwan and parts of Chinese territory.

hello!

according to the passage the most suitable options are two. the first one is "by leading the aef to victory in several key battles" like the battle of saint- mihiel and the battle of cantigny mentioned in the passage you copied here. the second one is "by the aef and allied forces defeat germany" since the passage says that his army destroy the german resistance in the meuse- argonne offensive. and also, "by insisting that the aef operate as an independent force".

hope this

separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another.   the intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.  

the traditional characterizations of the powers of the branches of american government are:

* the legislative branch is responsible for enacting the laws of the state and appropriating the money necessary to operate the government.

* the executive branch is responsible for implementing and administering the public policy enacted and funded by the legislative branch.

* the judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying their interpretations to controversies brought before it.

forty state constitutions specify that government be divided into three branches:   legislative, executive and judicial.   california illustrates this approach; "the powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial.   persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this constitution."

while separation of powers is key to the workings of american government, no democratic system exists with an absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of powers. governmental powers and responsibilities intentionally overlap; they are too complex and interrelated to be neatly compartmentalized. as a result, there is an inherent measure of competition and conflict

minnesota:   minnesota house research,   separation of powers: when statutes and court rules conflict, 2005