Read the excerpt from The Riddle of the Rosetta Stone. Before the Rosetta Stone was discovered in 1799, no one knew how to read Egyptian hieroglyphic writing. Its meaning had been lost for almost 1400 years. But countless visitors to Egypt over the centuries had tried to decipher the mysterious symbols. This is the story of their attempts, and of how the Rosetta Stone finally enabled scholars to unlock the Egyptian past.

The story begins in the seventh century A. D., when Greek scholars visiting Egypt first called the symbols "hieroglyphs." They gave them that name, which means "sacred carvings" in Greek, because they found so many of them on the walls of Egyptian tombs and temples.

Which phrase from this excerpt best supports the author’s view that the people who deciphered the Egyptian writing system played an important role in history?

A no one knew how to read Egyptian hieroglyphic writing
B countless visitors to Egypt over the centuries had tried
C The story begins in the seventh century A. D.
D finally enabled scholars to unlock the Egyptian past

Correct answer is D finally enabled scholars to unlock the Egyptian past.

Explanation:

Option D is the correct one, because it focuses on the importance of deciphering the hieroglyphs for the development of historical science. Scholars were finally able to discuss about history of Ancient Egypt.

Option A is not correct as people were finally able to read them after 1799.

Option B is not correct as this is not the central idea of the text.

Option C is not correct as the story starts a couple of millennium ago, not in 700 AD.

b) a state law could be declared illegal if it contradicted the constitution.

explanation:

the conflict of this case originated when james w. mcculloch, a cashier of the baltimore branch of the second bank of the united states that the congress had chartered in 1816, refused to pay a tax imposed by the maryland state.

in the case, the state of maryland appealed that the establishment of a second bank was unconstitutional since the constitution didn't say anything about granting that power to congress. however, the case determined that even if such right wasn't specifically stated in the constitution, it was part of the "implied powers" of the government enunciated in article i, section 8.

the case also eliminated maryland's legislation to impose taxes to a national bank, asserting that even though the states retained the power of taxation, the constitution's laws are supreme and can not be controlled by the states, therefore, if a state law contradicts the constitution, it should be declared illegal.

explanation: