Consider the society/country you live in, or another other country with which you are familiar. Evaluate that country according to substantive and procedural fairness, and consider which aspects of fairness you

would prioritise.

(a). To make the country fairer (according to the substantive judgement of fairness),

(i). do you prefer greater equality of income, happiness, or freedom? Why? [10]

(ii). Is there a trade-off between these aspects? [10]

(b). Are there other things that should be more equal to achieve a greater substantive fairness in your

country? {Hint: Discuss any or a combination of indicators of substantive fairness such as wealth,

health outcomes, and education outcomes}

"Cause i dont know what to do its not like i get to chose"

yeuisjfdhcjnwkasq

Explanation:

question - in 1827, john walker, a druggist in a small english town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. the druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. it is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. although walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. it could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. in a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. the match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. it would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. this was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar. according the paragraph what was the benefit of the new phosphorus match? it burst into flame when rubbed on sandpaper. it was made by mixing chemicals. it could be ignited on any dry surface. it threw fire in all directions.

answer - matches required natural chemicals