What is the main idea of the argument presented in the text? standard oil made higher profits than its competitors because it was able to buy oil for less. standard oil made higher profits because it received better shipping rates from railroad companiesstandard oil made the same profits as competing companieshere is the text: john rockefeller might get his oil cheaper now and then, they said, but he could not do it often. he might make close contracts for which they had neither the patience nor the stomach. he might have an unusual mechanical and practical genius in his partner. but these things could not explain all. they believed they bought, on the whole, almost as cheaply as he, and they knew they made as good oil and with as great, or nearly as great, economy. he could sell at no better price than they. where was his advantage? there was but one place where it could be, and that was in transportation. he must be getting better rates from the railroads than they were.

Standard Oil was an American company dedicated to the production and refining of oil. It was established in 1870 in Ohio by John D. Rockefeller and Henry Flager. It operated until 1911 when the US Supreme court ruled that it was an illegal monopoly.

The text concludes that occasional low prices and the expertise of Rockefeller's partner could not be deterministic factors in the notable competitive advantage that Standard Oil had. Therefore, it had to be the good rates that the company was getting for transporting its oil.

Standard Oil would be become to be one of the biggest companies at the time due to the application of vertical integration. Which consists of acquiring other participants in the supply chain in order to have better cost control and also gain a competitive edge.

Standard Oil made higher profits because it received better shipping rates from railroad companies

where is the picture of the graph or table?

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.