196. if a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. 197. if he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken. 198. if (a free man) put out the eye of a freed man, or break the bone of a freed man, he shall pay one gold mina. 199. if he put out the eye of a man's slave, or break the bone of a man's slave, he shall pay one-half of its value. 200. if a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out. 201. if he knock out the teeth of a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a gold mina. 202. if any one strike the body of a man higher in rank than he, he shall receive sixty blows with an ox-whip in public. 203. if a free-born man strike the body of another free-born man or equal rank, he shall pay one gold mina. 204. if a freed man strike the body of another freed man, he shall pay ten shekels in money. 205. if the slave of a freed man strike the body of a freed man, his ear shall be cut off. - taken from the code of hammurabi using this excerpt from the code of hammurabi, it can be determined that a) mesopotamians lived in a society without classes. b) mesopotamians lived in a society without rules and order. c) mesopotamians believed all "people were created equally." d) mesopotamians believed in the "eye for an eye" approach to justice.

Your answer would be D) Mesopotamians believed in the "eye for an eye" approach to justice. The phrase "eye for an eye" means someone that does something to another person should be penalized in a similar matter. And most of the laws have people's consequences relating to the actions that they made.

The answer is NOT (A) because there were classes during their time period.

The answer is NOT (B) because there were rules, and the rules were from The Code of Hammurabi.

The answer is NOT (C) because in Law #205, it says, " If the slave of a freed man strike the body of a freed man, his ear shall be cut off." But, if it were the opposite way, the free man strikes the slave, the free man wouldn't be as punished like the slave.

c. mass = force / accellaration

step-by-step explanation:

1- in bradbury's  fahrenheit 451, all books are banned and burned upon discovery. in the nazi germany, books considered to be subversive to the regime would be burned to keep the population from generating ideologies that could challenge nazism.

2- was bradbury correct in his literal interpretation of  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.”? in some way, yes. when knowledge is not only limited, but also controlled, the people tied to it are led to their demise. just like in the novel, people in nazi germany who owned  subversive books were punished not only by the burning of their property, but also by the discrimination that followed after such a public form of consequence. if a person was seen being confiscated  subversive  books, they may be considered as an ally to the jews, which meant pretty much the same as being the enemy back then. because of the extreme exclusion and suffering that followed this punishment, it's almost like dying a slow death.

in this way, the phrase  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.” is both literal and figurative.

explanation:

mark brainliest and have a great day!