From britain's perspective, were stationing soldiers in the new world permanently and issuing the proclamation of 1763 good colonial policies? how else might have britain solved those problems while limiting colonial contempt?

The proclamation of 1763 came out of the Treaty of Paris after the Seven Years War, so the British could incorporate lands ceded by the French as a result of their loss. The stationery soldiers were to establish a boundary between the new lands and the lands of the Native American, and to protect the colonizers forms their attacks.

The colonizers were unhappy because they lost the chance to get lands for their own, and because they couldn't commerce freely with the Native. Britain could have left the colonizers to adventure in strange lands and be massacred by the Native Americans, but couldn't afford to lose power over this new lands, over the colonizers and the Native.  

explanation:

there are two statements that are incorrect.

1. the marshall plan was a lend lease program. it was an economic plan that europe redevelop itself after wwii.

2. einstein didn't really do anything to further the allied cause in building the bomb. he merely sent a letter to fdr telling him (in 1939) that if the united states entered the war, perhaps it would be wise to build the bomb before germany did. i would say this answer is incorrect, but when america entered the war 2 years later, fdr thought it might be a good idea to take einstein's advice.

the 4th choice is definitely so wrong that is likely the single answer of this question