A person can think however they want. Actions, like many have said, define a person in the end. Someone can advocate for peace with malicious intent, but they will still likely be remembered for advocating peace and not for their impure motivations. If these contradicting images are revealed to the public, that is still an act against that person, and is no longer a thought.
However, this is only from the public's view. When it comes to people, they may as well be the embodiment of their thoughts. Everything is fueled by something. The same person who seeds their own goals under the guise of peace will not think of themselves as one who acts with the intentions of bringing peace. They will be looking to call forth whatever it is that they want, and be aware that what they present to the public is not the truth.
So, both points are arguable. It depends on whether you value the individual or the community. Actions are what are remembered, and thoughts are a person's reason. Even today, this comes into relevancy because people want to know why certain figures in history did what they did. Thoughts make a person human, after all. Without thought, seperation of man and beast would be nigh impossible. Without action, man would have been left behind long ago. Both thought and action are important indeed.
Answer:
I cant see the statements
Explanation:
make sure to add those
Reason, research, resonance, redescription, rewards, real-world events, and resistance. Hope this helped! :D
The answer would be C. By using parallel structure, Roosevelt emphasizes the challenge the country faces in transitioning from peacetime to wartime.
The literary device parallelism is employed to emphasize how hard it is prepare for a wartime scenario. Parallelism is used mostly to provide emphasis in many moving passages and is efficient when trying to persuade or convince one's audience.
Example:
It was dark because a new era was upon the nation. It was dark because change was coming. It was dark because the struggle had only begun.
In this example, repeating the phrase "It was dark" places emphasis on the ominous tone of the prompt and allows the reader to feel the gravity of the situation.
The argument is that the original US Constitution did not intend for African slaves to be “citizens” of the United States. It is historically false since as dissenter justices Curtis and McLean stated, five of the original 13 states had a sizable minority of free black men who were citizens that could also vote in federal and state elections. Now that being established, the correct answer should be “hasty generalization” since the argument pretends that all citizens, at the time of the ratification of the constitution were white and that only these "all white" citizens were able to vote which is historically false. It could not be a genetic fallacy since the historical precedent invalidates the claim that the intended meaning of the word “citizens” only applied to white Americans. It could not be an <em>ad populum</em> fallacy since not all Americans agreed with such contention, and finally, it could not be a case of begging the claim since they do provide a finding that in their view supports their erroneous conclusion, so it is not circular logic.
