Which question about the mummy is relevant, focused, and feasible? Who was the first person to find a mummy?

Who built pyramids for Egyptians who were seen as important?

How many mummies have been found over the years?

How important was the person who was mummified believed to be?

How important was the person who was mummified believed to be?

Explanation:

Given that a question can be considered relevant, focused, and feasible when it satisfies the unbiased characteristics of the immediate empirical society, which includes elements such as time, scope, resources, expertise, financing, and so on.

Also given that the process of mummifying a body was expensive and the purpose is to preserve the dead body for the afterlife.

Hence, the question about the mummy which is relevant, focused, and feasible is "How important was the person who was mummified believed to be?" This because the question satisfies the factual aspects of the immediate empirical society on the mummy, why they practice it, the time at which they practice it (which is ancient Egypt), and its influence in the society. It also falls within reasonable resources and funding to gather the desirable outcome.

it will be innate immunity. good luck with your test : )!

oh and if you need . ask the question

b) a state law could be declared illegal if it contradicted the constitution.

explanation:

the conflict of this case originated when james w. mcculloch, a cashier of the baltimore branch of the second bank of the united states that the congress had chartered in 1816, refused to pay a tax imposed by the maryland state.

in the case, the state of maryland appealed that the establishment of a second bank was unconstitutional since the constitution didn't say anything about granting that power to congress. however, the case determined that even if such right wasn't specifically stated in the constitution, it was part of the "implied powers" of the government enunciated in article i, section 8.

the case also eliminated maryland's legislation to impose taxes to a national bank, asserting that even though the states retained the power of taxation, the constitution's laws are supreme and can not be controlled by the states, therefore, if a state law contradicts the constitution, it should be declared illegal.

explanation: