Can any one pls send these question answers

1. democratic, because without the voice of the people, the government has no legitimacy. People give consent to the government to rule through their elected leaders, not allowing them to remove this consent or renew it is undemocratic. But, in this case, the people have a voice through their new leaders and have a chance to renew the social contract.

2.  undemocratic, it is in the first ammendment that there is freedom of speech, AND freedom of press. When people are not able to educate themselves about the world around them, they aren't able to participate in government and know the truth about it.

3. undemocratic, every single person over the voting age or requirements needs the right to vote. not every single person has the chance to become "educated" enough to vote in this situation. It is unfair to strip their voice away and take away this basic right you are given. Without this right there is little other way to communicate directly with all the levels of government.

4. undemocratic, freedom of speech is allowed in the first ammendment, so that the government is able to hear the voices of it's people. people give the government the power to rule, and not allowing them to critize it can become dangerous when it comes to the government ignoring the people's needs and it can become too powerful.

Explanation:

hope this helped!

question - in 1827, john walker, a druggist in a small english town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. the druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. it is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. although walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. it could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. in a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. the match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. it would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. this was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar. according the paragraph what was the benefit of the new phosphorus match? it burst into flame when rubbed on sandpaper. it was made by mixing chemicals. it could be ignited on any dry surface. it threw fire in all directions.

answer - matches required natural chemicals