Why do you think courts of appeals generally limit their review of cases to questions of the law rather than to matters of fact

Courts of appeals generally deal with reviews of the law, rather than reviews of fact. This is because their work is different from the work of lower courts. Lower courts are responsible for looking at the facts and doing investigative work. Courts of appeals only focus on studying whether the trials at these lower courts were done according to the law.

If courts of appeals also did investigative work, trials would become neverending and the timeframe would be unworkable. Moreover, if courts of appeals focused on fact, they would not be able to move on to the next stage and focus on questions of law. This would leave a large gap on a subject of great importance.

by 1890, the united states had by far the world's most productive economy. american industry produced twice as much as its closest competitor--britain. but the united states was not a great military or diplomatic power. its army numbered less than 30,000 troops, and its navy had only about 10,000 seamen. britain's army was five times the size of its american counterpart, and its navy was ten times bigger. the united states' military was small because the country was situated between two large oceans and was surrounded by weak or friendly nations. it faced no serious military threats and had little interest in asserting military power overseas.

wheres the studying charts

explanation: