A few decades ago, many families had half a dozen or more children. Nowadays, more and more families are choosing to have only one or two children. Are smaller families better than larger ones? Why or why not?

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

As it happens in most cases, this issue has advantages and disadvantages. But the thing is that under the present economic, political, and social conditions, smaller families have better chances to offer the support to raise children and give them education, shelter, proper nutrition, and better chances to thrive.

In the past, natality control was not an issue. Parents could have two, three, and more children. The economic conditions were completely different from the ones we are living in today.

Education has played a major role in creating consciousness in new generations about having a small family or not at all. Young couples have different priorities such as personal development, scale-up in the corporate world, travel, and other different options.

not  

cuba  

russia  

iraq  

el salvador  

explanation:

known as the land of volcanoes, el salvador has visit seismic tremors and volcanic movement. it is the main nation in central america that does not have a coastline on the caribbean sea. about portion of all salvadorans live in the wide open. they are poor and don't have power or running water in their homes. in 1525, pedro de alvarado, a lieutenant of cortés's, vanquished el salvador. el salvador, with alternate nations of central america, pronounced its freedom from spain on sept. 15, 1821, and was a piece of a league of central american states until the point when that association broke up in 1838.

answer; ecological fallacy;