According to the cultural deviance theories group/branch of social structure theories, people across all social classes of american society share the same success goals but those in the lower class have limited means (opportunity) for achieving them. therefore, youths that are members of the lower class are more likely to.

  Violence, aggression and crime

Explanation:  Social Structure Theories have three branches, and cultural deviance theories is one of them, according to which crime and aggressive, hostile behaviour arise as a result of a conflict of values between different cultural heritage and the perception of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. American society is made up of a great deal of cultural heritage, so there are many different understandings of value, and so on.

This group of theories also includes strain theory, which is compatible with the others that make up Social Structure Theories. Strain theory speaks that everyone is aiming for the American Dream, but class affiliation restricts members of the lower class. The inability to achieve this by members of the lower class makes them frustrated, which is a strain.

Now, the strain combined with the different cultural heritage and understanding of what these ways of achieving the American Dream are, with the humiliation they experience, many feel they can use any means to achieve their goal. And these are violence and humiliation of others as a reaction to the frustration they feel as well as crime, which they consider to be a just means to an end because they too feel they are entitled to the American Dream, and crime is their only way due to the restrictions that the lower class is experiencing.

i feel as if they would both catch on before to long because they would see them to frequent

question - in 1827, john walker, a druggist in a small english town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. the druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. it is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. although walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. it could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. in a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. the match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. it would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. this was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar. according the paragraph what was the benefit of the new phosphorus match? it burst into flame when rubbed on sandpaper. it was made by mixing chemicals. it could be ignited on any dry surface. it threw fire in all directions.

answer - matches required natural chemicals