Antimaterialists tend to deride the importance of "things." yet, things are highly significant, not merely because of their functional utility but also because of their psychological impact. we develop relationships with things. things affect our sense of continuity or discontinuity. they play a role in the structure of situations, and the oreshortening of our relationships with things accelerates the pace of life. (alvin toffler, future shock)
a. nonargument.
b. argument; conclusion: we develop relationships with things.
c. argument; conclusion: antimaterialists tend to "things."
d. argument; conclusion: yet things are highly significant.
e. argument; conclusion: they play a role the pace of life.

the best and most correct answer among the choices provided by the question is the second choice "less supportive to the war of 1812"

the war of 1812 was a military conflict that lasted from june 1812 to february 1815, fought between the united states of america and the united kingdom, its north american colonies, and its native american allies.

i hope my answer has come to your . god bless and have a nice day ahead!

the anti federalists was a movement that was opposed to the creation of a us federal government. although they were not as organized as the federalists, they also had a large group of leaders, especially in state politics.

the statement "now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people” represents the concerns of the anti federalists.

they strongly believed that the federalists were representing the interests of aristocratic elements of society at the expense of the majority of ordinary people, who lived in a rural society.

their fear for the creation of a strong federal government and the president’s power of veto in their opinion would create a tyrannical rule that would dominate the people. they defended the importance of restraining the government’s power towards people at any cost.

an informal structure in a bureaucracy would be something like so-called "office politics". where there's a formal structure set up for the organization, but then an informal subculture as well that has a way of organizing the bureaucracy further. this can be positive because it sets up an added degree of organization, albeit informal, within the bureaucracy.

answer; action;