Apolitical analyst in hawaii surveys a random sample of registered democrats and compares the results with those obtained from a random sample of registered republicans. this would be an example of:

Supreme court. jim, who is a bit eccentric, says that he is fed up with the way a certain employer in his town treats employees and that he is going to sue that employer in an effort to improve matters. jim also says that he is going to start his case at the appellate court level, skipping over all those "lesser" judges. jim says that those justices will surely hear him out and that he will also seek a jury. although he is not a lawyer, jim believes that the offenses of the employer are so severe that the justices will appreciate his attempt to make things better for the employees involved. will jim get a jury at the appellate court level?

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.

Which of these persons was a co-founder of twitter? eric schmidt jack dorsey tim cook paul alle