Olivia was divorced three years ago and has custody of her preadolescent children (one boy and one girl). Olivia is now planning to remarry. Who will have the most difficulty adjusting to this new blended family

According to this chart, which country is likely to have the most economic freedom with regards to entrepreneurship?

In 1914, alabama produced 1.7 million bales of cotton, but three years later produced only 515,000, bales. meanwhile, in georgia, 5.2 million acres of land was dedicated for cotton production in 1914, but by 1923 there were just 2.6 million acres used for growing cotton. all of this was the result of the work of a tiny insect: the boll weevil. alabama and georgia first felt the effects of the boll weevil at different times. what would account for this difference in timing? a) the infestation moved from west to east. b) the infestation moved from east to west. c) georgia had better ways to deal with the problem. d) alabama was further from the insect's point of origin.

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.