Who won the duel between hamilton and burr?

a) hamilton
b) burr
c) it was a tie.
d) the duel never took place.

For each of the following, mark whether it is a possible confounder (a factor that mixes up the results, making it look like candy is to blame when it's a causal (or causation) link which supports the argument that candy causes criminal behavior (ie, explains how candy leads to criminality ), or neither (an irrelevant factor, something that may cause people to become criminals but has nothing to do with eating candy). choose your answers based only< on the information given. additives in candy- additives found in candy may adversely affect brain development of young children in ways that could contribute towards adult aggression. impulsive personality-- kids who are highly impulsive and have trouble delaying gratification are more likely to eat candy every day as children and more likely to disobey laws as adults. violent abuse-- children who suffer violent abuse are more likely to become violent adults and commit violent crimes. gender- boys are overwhelmingly more likely to commit violent crimes

Research and review one of the following cases: 1. eeoc vs abercrombie and fitch inc. 2. young vs ups 3. vance vs ball state university after you have thought through and understand the case answer the following: 1. explain the facts of the case leading to the dispute. 2. define and show understanding of each of the terms assigned to your case. break the laws into components where necessary. eeoc vs abercrombie and fitch inc: 1) eeoc, 2) title vii, 3) disparate treatment discrimination, 4)disparate impact discrimination vance vs ball state university: 1) eeoc, 2) title vii, 3) hostile work environment, 4) a supervisor for title vii purposes young vs ups: 1) title vii, 2) pregnancy discrimination act, 3)american's with disabilities act, 4) reasonable accommodation 3.how do the above concepts come into play in the case? 4. what rule of law came from the case? what did the court decide? 5. based on your understanding of employment law was the ruling correct? explain using a legal principle.

'nepal have varied vegetation as climate and landforms'. justify the statement