What was the life of Alexander Hamilton and his impact on the financial system in America

Ascientist successfully predicts the outcome of an experiment. you watch carefully and know he didn't cheat. the scientist's success shows that: a) the scientist knows absolute truth about this experiment; success is not possible unless you know the truthb) the scientist was just lucky; no one ever knows what's going on, so successful predictions require luckc) the scientist may know the truth, or at least know something that is close to the truth, or the scientist may have gotten lucky this time; you can't be absolutely sured) the scientist really was cheating, even though you didn't see the cheating; no one can get things right, except by cheatinge) the scientist spent the night at a particular hotel chain and go a free breakfast, giving the scientist the ability to do amazing things

Which argument for religious reform might be convincing to a priest, pope, or king?

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.