Colonization of New France and New Netherlands 1534: Jacques Cartier makes the first of three voyages to Canada. 1603: Samuel de Champlain founds a settlement at Québec. 1609: The Netherlands sends Henry Hudson to explore North America. 1626: Peter Minuet buys Manhattan Island and founds New Amsterdam. Use the list of events to answer the question. What circumstance led to the expansion of these colonies? A. alliances with the British B. profits from cash crop farming C. competition in the fur trade D. discovery of rich mineral deposits

You think all professors are uncoordinated, but then you see your social psychology professor make a diving catch down the left-field line at an intramural softball game against the arts department team. you also notice that your professor hits lead-off for the team and is able to score from second base on a ground-out. you maintain your original stereotype of professors as uncoordinated by deciding that this one individual is an exception to the rule because he is a “young professor.” this is an example of

Which powers best complete this graphic?

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.