Which statement best explains why analogical reasoning plays a prominent role in legal argument? analogical reasoning is less prominent in statutory law. legal arguments frequently involve conclusions about a case at trial that are based on a comparison with some preceding case. cases of first impression have no clear precedent. legal precedents do not have equal weight in all jurisdictions.

5x + 3y = - 4

step-by-step explanation:

the equation of a line in standard form is

ax + by = c ( a is a positive integer and b, c are integers )

express the line first of all in slope- intercept form

y = mx + c ( m is the slope and c the y-intercept )

to calculate m use the gradient formula

m = ( y₂ - y₁ ) / ( x₂ - x₁ )

with (x₁, y₁ ) = (7, - 3) and (x₂, y₂ ) = (4, - 8)

m = = -

y = - x + c ← is the partial equation

to find c substitute either of the 2 points into the partial equation

using (4, - 8 ), then

- 8 = - + c ⇒ c = -

y = - x - ← in slope-intercept form

multiply all terms by 3 to eliminate the fractions

3y = - 5x - 4 ( add 5x to both sides )

5x + 3y = - 4 ← in standard form

the answer would be d

straight away you can eliminate a and c because not all books contain a scientific skill because some may be fiction. c is also wrong because it saids that the only way children can learn is through books which is incorrect.

b is also wrong because reading can be a scientific skill but not always, therefore it is wrong which leaves you with d, the correct answer since it said that it can children learn.

hope this ! : 3

i have no idea just need points sorry

step-by-step explanation: