what additional details about the bombs on earth are revealed in the radio play
(dark they were and golden-eyed)

Answer:A claim is the main argument. A counterclaim is the opposite of the argument, or the opposing argument. A reason tells why the claim is made and is supported by the evidence. Evidence is the facts or research to support your claim.

Explanation:

It's necessary to take into account various viewpoints and studies when addressing alternative claims or counterarguments regarding the custom of spelling out numerals one through 10 in academic writing and utilising digits for numbers 11 and above.

A few possible counterclaims are as follows:

Thus, these can be the counterclaims for the argument.

For more details regarding academic writing, visit:

https://brainly.com/question/30834356

#SPJ4

Answer:True

Explanation: direct nouns refer to a specific person, place or thing.

Answer:

True

Explanation:

i.e YOU are talking to a person in a State of direct address

Answer:

Explanation:

B:include key details from the text and C convey the text main ideas

Answer: Some guitars cost over 200 dollars

Explanation:

Have a nice day, hope this helps!

Answer: fragment, no, yes

Explanation:

Answer: Articulating , like separate fingers,antonym

Explanation: the context clue words like or , are one,

What you can put : separate,not together

Select the three ways you can fix a run-on sentence. Question 2 options: add a comma semicolon add a comma + FANBOYS (coordinating conjunction) period

Answer:

How did Rome go from being one of many city-states in the Italian peninsula to being the center of the most powerful empire in the ancient world? Part of the answer lies in the political institutions that Rome developed early in its history. As Rome expanded its influence over more and more areas, its political institutions proved both resilient and adaptable, allowing it to incorporate diverse populations.

According to Roman tradition, the Republic began in 509 BCE when a group of noblemen overthrew the last king of Rome. The Romans replaced the king with two consuls—rulers who had many of the same powers as the king but were elected to serve one-year terms. Each consul could veto, or reject, the actions of the other consul. Although the office of consul probably did not exist in its final form until around 300 BCE, the idea behind this change—to prevent any one man from becoming too powerful—was present early on in Roman thought and shaped many of Rome’s political institutions.

Roman political institutions reflected Roman society, which was divided into two classes: the patricians, wealthy elites, and the plebeians, the common people. Initially, only the patricians were able to hold political office and make important decisions. For example, plebeians could not join the Roman Senate—an advisory body unable to create laws on its own but whose recommendations were taken seriously by the consuls. To become a senator, a Roman had to have held a political office, and plebeians could not. Over time, however, the plebeians were able to gain more influence in the political system.

Between the years 494 and 287 BCE, new political offices for plebeians were created and access to higher office, including the consulship, was opened to them. Voting assemblies and councils were established that gave plebeians more say in the politics of Rome. In 287 BCE, a law removed the last barrier to plebeian political participation by abolishing the requirement that proposed laws had to be approved by patrician senators before the Plebeian Council could consider them.

The Plebeian Council had real power and influence in Roman politics and some plebeians gained power and wealth under these new arrangements, but many remained poor. One reason that political rights did not lead to major changes was that the Comitia Centuriata—the main voting assembly that elected consuls and other important officials—was organized based on wealth. Each century—or voting group—had one vote, but the wealthy were split into smaller groups than the poor, giving the vote of a wealthy Roman more influence.

In what ways did the Romans limit the political power of any one man?

How did Roman political structures limit the influence of the poor?

Military

Although the voting system might appear a deliberate strategy to empower the wealthy, it was actually a reflection of the Roman military structure. The Comitia Centuriata was named for the century—literally a group of 100 soldiers, though in practice the division was never so exact—which was the standard Roman military unit under the kingdom and most of the republican era. Men were divided into classes based on their wealth because soldiers had to provide their own equipment. Only wealthy Romans could afford high-quality weapons and armor, which made them more effective soldiers. Men without property were not eligible for military service and these poorest Romans, though the largest class in numbers, were placed into the smallest number of centuries for voting.

Part of the reason that the Romans saw no problem with allowing the wealthy to have greater political influence was because they believed that those who had the most wealth also had the most to lose from Roman defeat, so the wealthy had better motivation to be good soldiers and a better sense of what was good policy for Rome.

What was the reasoning behind dividing the military into units based on wealth?

Foreign policy and expansion

The Romans did not set out any deliberate plan to build an empire. Instead, Rome expanded as it came into conflict with surrounding city-states, kingdoms, and empires and had to create ways to incorporate these new territories and populations. The Romans did not try to turn everyone they conquered into a Roman. For the most part, cities and regions that came under Roman control were allowed to maintain their existing cultural and political institutions. The only major requirement that Rome imposed on its defeated enemies was that they provide soldiers for military campaigns. In the ancient world, military victory usually meant a share of the loot taken from the conquered, so participating on the winning side of a conflict offered incentives to Rome’s new allies.