In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the united stated today, a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.
(a) a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee
(b) a corporation is committing a crime whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if those employees were acting
(c) corporations commit a crime whenever one of its employees does, on the condition that the employee acts
(d) corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting
(e) the corporation whose employees commit a crime, commits a crime, whenever the employee acted

(D) corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting

Explanation:

In the American court apparatus, a company may be framed for a crime that the employee committed while working and as a representative of the company. However, if the employee commits a crime during his or her personal routine, which has nothing to do with the company's activities, the company will not be framed in the criminal act. For example, if during work hours a company employee runs over a person, the company may also be held responsible. If an employee runs over a person while off duty, in a particular routine, such as a trip to the mall, only the employee will be penalized.

hello,

your answer is ready

i believe its either the first or third option but i'm leaning more towards the third option:

the first excerpt makes a logical appeal, while the second excerpt makes an emotional appeal.

your pal

~papaguy

chavez's example shows that nonviolent protest can work well. it shows that one nonviolent man can stop a mob, which proves chavez's point and persuades people to protest nonviolently.