Madison’s version of the speech and press clauses, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.” The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison’s draft, to make it read: “ The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.” In this form it went to the Senate, which rewrote it to read: “That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate. The final language was agreed upon in conference.
This year, she competed in three competitions
Answer:
The reader will feel the tension immeditaely after just starting to read, allowing questions and tension to form so the reader will question about what happens before the action. By the way, in media res is when the author starts the story in the middle instead of the beginning.
Explanation:
In the sentence "These days, parents neglect to watch their children's social media use", we find an example of the hasty generalization fallacy.
Hasty generalization does not present enough evidence to support the argument made and, therefore, generalizes a fact. In the sentence above, there is an affirmation that parents do not watch their children's social media use. How can the speaker state this? Who are these parents: all of them? Just a percentage? What about the parents who do watch their kids' use of social media? Do they not count?
As for the other options given, let's take a look at a brief description of what they mean:
Non sequitur is when a conclusion does not follow the evidence presented. It's an absurd conclusion, considering the information given. --> People like watching movies. Movies have violence. Therefore, having some violence happen to people is desirable.
Post hoc is a fallacy in which the speaker assumes there is a connection between events simply because they happened one after the other. That is, if B happened after A, then B happened because of A. --> If it rained after I had an ice cream, then it rained because I had the ice cream.
False analogy happens when the speaker analyzes two different facts under the same point of view and conditions, drawing a conclusion that is far-fetched. --> Monica is from South America. Alice is also from South America. Therefore, Monica and Alice are from the same country.
Either a semi colon or a comma can be used, it just depends on the sentence. :)
