Pls i need an answer asap
i will give brainiest
List three stages for applying paints​

Padma has written a paper on the effects of the black death, a plague that struck europe in 1347 and killed millions of people. she focused on three major results of the plague: • a smaller population after the plague led to higher wages and greater independence for workers. • the power of the catholic church weakened because so many members had died and others had lost their faith. • a lack of farm workers led more people to raise livestock rather than planting crops, changing the european diet. read her conclusion: it does not seem right to say that an experience as horrifying as the black death had any “good” sides. still, the changes that followed the plague improved the lives of peasants. people who had previously lived in poverty, forced to work for a single employer, now had higher wages and the freedom to change jobs. even so, the continent had been devastated and would take many years to recover. which statement best evaluates her conclusion? a. the conclusion effectively summarizes all the writer’s main points. b. the conclusion is engaging, but it introduces an unnecessary new idea. c. the conclusion is engaging, but only summarizes one of the writer’s points. d. the conclusion is engaging but it does not summarize any of the writer’s main points.

Rick read the following argument: although the gas helium is the second most abundant element in the known universe, its supplies on earth are limited. most helium comes either from mining minerals or as a byproduct of natural gas. although helium is in low supply, the demand for it is quite high. it can be used for a variety of medical purposes, including the treatment of breathing problems such as asthma. helium also has heart and nerve protective properties, and doctors are beginning to use it in surgery. yet current laws make recycling helium unprofitable. for the sake of our health, those laws must change. which statement would be the most appropriate in a conclusion to this argument? why? a. “these laws are unlikely to change, so we must take steps to manufacture helium on our own.” this statement makes the logical leap that if we can't recycle helium, we should create it. b. “until human disease is a thing of the past, we cannot support laws that put helium supplies at risk.” this restates the claim of this argument, which is that we should do everything in our power to treat human diseases. c. “if there is any practical use for helium other than medicine, laws should change to protect current supplies of the gas.” this sentence summarizes one of the major points of the argument, which is that helium reserves are in low supply. d. “human health depends on helium, and therefore it is necessary to change the laws that make it hard to acquire.” this restates the claim of the argument and also summarizes the supporting evidence that illnesses can be treated by helium.

What was a problem faced by many newly independent african countries