Answer:
Often based on forced confessions, the trials made a mockery of the idea of due process of law. All the participants of these so-called "show trials," including the judges, served Stalin's political evil.Stalin often persecuted people not for what they did, but for who they were. Anyone having anything to do with foreigners or foreign countries automatically became suspects of spying. This included entire groups of people such as foreign language teachers, members of pen pal organizations, even stamp collectors. Those with religious backgrounds like Catholic priests, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Jews were arrested in large numbers. Agricultural officials, factory managers, and engineers were frequently accused of economic sabotage known as "wrecking." They were blamed for railway accidents, livestock diseases, crop failures, and hundreds of other shortcomings in the Soviet economy. Finally, Communist Party officials at higher and higher levels were arrested and charged with being "oppositionists" or followers of Stalin's hated rival, Leon Trotsky.
Explanation:
Stalin demanded confessions from his victims. To extract these confessions, the secret police resorted to a variety of methods. The "conveyor" involved the continuous interrogation of a person by relays of police for hours and even days at a time. Intellectuals and the party elite were often subjected to the "long interrogation" by a single interrogator who carried on his questioning sometimes for weeks and months.
Some people confessed when police interrogators threatened family members. Others hoped that by cooperating they would save themselves. Many confessed under beatings and torture, at first an unofficial means of gaining a confession. In 1937, Stalin made torture the official and usual method of getting confessions. Stalin reportedly ordered the secret police to "beat, beat, and beat again."
Many caught up in the mass arrests invented "crimes" so that they could confess to something. Many admitted guilt without even knowing the charges. However, some top Communist Party officials arrested on orders from Stalin confessed for quite another reason. These members of the old generation of revolutionaries came to power with Lenin in 1917 and had such faith in the party that they refused to believe it could ever be wrong. In Arthur Koestler's novel, Darkness at Noon, the main character named Rubashov is falsely accused of plotting the assassination of "No. 1"(Stalin). Rubashov finally "confesses" after declaring, "I will do everything which may serve the Party." In the novel, he willingly took a bullet in the head after becoming convinced that he must be guilty because the party said so.
Answer:
Judge Danforth says that he would be "confounded" because the case is extremely argumentative and it is so open that it would be very difficult to defend each one of them as many have committed dishonest actions,
Explanation:
The reasons behind this answer are that in the first place Judge Danforth analyzed the context and the situation to deduct that building a defense on them and their crimes would be very difficult because when a lawyer wants to defend a case he or she has to grab everything available do show the client is innocent. But in this case, all of them committed dishonest actions.
1. What is the speaker’s purpose and viewpoint in “Acres of Diamonds”? How does the speaker use rhetoric to advance his purpose and clearly convey his viewpoint?
Answer:
The speaker’s purpose and viewpoint in Acres of Diamonds is to convey the idea that everyone in Philadelphia can get rich by finding diamonds, but first they have to convince themselves that they can really find diamonds. Russell H. Conwell tries to advance his purpose and clearly convey his viewpoint by saying that the people of Philadelphia has many prejudices that does not allow them to see the truth for progressing economically. In addition, he appeals to the younger people of Philadelphia saying that they have not grown up with customs that cannot let them grow believing that there can be a change in their economic lives.
2. What is the main argument of the passage? What claims does the author make to support the argument? How valid, relevant, and sufficient is the reasoning and evidence used to support the argument and claims? Does the author use false statements or fallacious reasoning to support the argument and claims?
Answer:
The main argument of the passage is that Philadelphia people can now be rich “within the reach of almost every man and woman”. The reasoning and evidence he uses to support the argument he claims is valid, relevant, and sufficient. First, he appeals to evidence mentioning that a young man found a diamond in North Carolina, appealing to the people common sense of believing that if a young man could find a diamond, anyone can do it. Furthermore, he appeals to an expert voice, a distinguished professor in mineralogy to ask him about where those diamonds came from. The professor assured Conwell that in Philadelphia there is one of the greatest diamond-mines in the world.
The author uses true and false statements to support his arguments and claims. He mentions that he has been told all his life that if a person has money, it is because he or she is dishonest. This truth has two sides, one that really shows the ugly truth of many people getting rich dishonestly, and the other saying that all rich people are honest. Conwell mistakenly says that the foundation of Philadelphia people is false, and that all rich people are honest, a false argument that excuses him for his eagerness to convince people of Philadelphia to get rich.
Explanation:
1. Static character
2. Plot
3. Theme
4. Characterization
5. Setting
6. Symbolism
7. Dynamic Character
8. Narrator
9. Imagery
10. Protagonist<span />
