All the sentences support the claim that the American colonies could thrive independently from Britain. The one that does it more directly is number 3: But even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power had any thing to do with her.
Sentences 1 and 2 are simply explaining - by comparing the country to a child - how naive is the claim that, if America once needed Britain, it would always need Britain. It would be the same as saying a child will never eat meat because he/she was first raised my being fed milk.
Sentence 4 is only claiming America has found a lucrative livelihood by taking advantage of European habits and needs.
Sentence 3 makes it clear that, in Paine's opinion, America not only is successful but could have done even better if there had been no interference from Britain at all from the very start. Such connection was not essential for America's development, it only hindered it.
Answer:
Good one. Because he went into the concrete he became hardened because concrete does that.
Explanation:
I think it’s character vs character
Hope this helps!
