We know that some powers belong entirely to the federal government (enumerated powers) and others are entirely the states' (reserved powers). however, since the responsibilities of states and the federal government do overlap quite a bit on occasion, the founding fathers also saw the need for some power-sharing. that's why there are so-called powers, such as the power to tax, the power to maintain courts (i. e. state and federal courts, as you now know), and the power to borrow money.

The correct answer to this question is: concurrent powers.

Concurrent powers are shared powers such as the power to tax, the power to maintain courts (i.e. state and federal courts, as you now know), and the power to borrow money.

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. : )