Refer to the map. A world map titled Reported Cases of Ebola outside West Africa, January 2015. Recovered patients were in Omaha, New York, Atlanta, Oslo, London, Hamburg, Geneva, Madrid, and Rome. In-treatment patients were in Paris. Deceased patients were in Omaha, Dallas, Leipzig, and Madrid.

Which of the following trends best explains how nations detailed on the map were able to quickly contain the outbreak of Ebola?

They provided effective medical response where the disease originated.
They invested in improved living conditions in areas affected by the disease.
They used modern technology to improve prevention programs and screen travelers.
They used modern technology to revitalize agricultural communities affected by the disease.

The correct answer is A) They provided an effective medical response where the disease originated.

The trend that best explains how nations detailed on the map were able to quickly contain the outbreak of Ebola was "They provided effective medical response where the disease originated."

In the map, we can clearly see the reported Cases of Ebola outside West Africa. Ebola is a major health threat in African countries that has caused many deaths. The map is from January 2015.

The map shows the location of recovered patients that were in Omaha, New York, Atlanta, Oslo, London, Hamburg, Geneva, Madrid, and Rome. In-treatment patients were in Paris. Deceased patients were in Omaha, Dallas, Leipzig, and Madrid.

The first medical response to treat patients was one of the most important actions that helped to contain the spread of the disease. As we observe, most of these places are first-world countries or developing nations that had the resources and modern health services that allow these countries to swiftly react in the case of detected patients with this kind of disease. That is how they were capable of containing the spread of Ebola.  

thtrhthtrrththtrhrt

step-by-step explanation:

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.