Using factual and legal similarities, show how Timbs v. Indiana is analogous (similar) to the precedent case (McDonald v. Chicago):

false

explanation:

the correct answer is moro reflex. this is usually witnessed in infants normally up to the age of 4-5 months (in some cases maybe more)  

it is caused by a sudden loss of support that makes the baby feel as if he or she is falling or is going to fall and hence the flinging of the arms and crying.

answer:

2

explanation:

1+1 = 2

the reason this is so is because of basic addition. we can double check this without using addition if you really want. if you take 1+1=x, subtract 1 from both sides than you get 1 = x - 1. subtract x from both sides and you get 1 - x = -1. subtract 1 from both sides again and you get -x = -2. finally, multiply both sides by -1 to get x = 2. subtraction is still technically addition you say? fine, have it your way. 1 + 1 = x. by definition, adding something to itself is the same thing as multiplying it by 2. this means we can technically rewrite the equation as

1 * 2 = x. now all we have to do is solve it. 1 * 2 = x when simplified results in 2 = x, or x = 2. this shows 1 + 1 = x. you say you want a real answer. you want me to start you from the ground up? well i would, but that would practically just be stealing from what was written on this website: go check it out if you really need to.