Explain why people still do not understand everything about Incan civilization, Such as why certain buildings were built 

You are a member of the jury for a murder case. the prosecution has presented dna evidence linking the defendant to the crime scene. the defense claims that dna evidence using str analysis with 13 markers is not sufficient to reliably distinguish between people. what do you think? a. the defense is right. str analysis with 13 markers gives a 1 in 1 million chance of two people having the same pattern, leaving a reasonable doubt. b. str analysis is not sufficient. the defendant's entire genome should be sequenced. the prosecution will have to consult a genomic library to make sure their dna evidence is valid. c. the prosecution is right. str analysis with 13 markers gives a 1 in 10 billion or greater chance that two people will have the same pattern. this person was at the crime scene. d. dna evidence is not generally accepted by legal experts.

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 the following statements best describes the concept behind labor unions?