What did the 1767 Townshend Acts specify? that Britain would tax only imports into the colonies

that Britain would charge export duties

that Britain would stop all imports into the colonies

that Britain would tax products sent from the colonies

that Britain would tax only imports into the colonies

Explanation:

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )

the anti federalists was a movement that was opposed to the creation of a us federal government. although they were not as organized as the federalists, they also had a large group of leaders, especially in state politics.

the statement "now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people” represents the concerns of the anti federalists.

they strongly believed that the federalists were representing the interests of aristocratic elements of society at the expense of the majority of ordinary people, who lived in a rural society.

their fear for the creation of a strong federal government and the president’s power of veto in their opinion would create a tyrannical rule that would dominate the people. they defended the importance of restraining the government’s power towards people at any cost.