Answer: D. To demonstrate that he can relate to being oppressed
Explanation: In this excerpt from Elie Wiesel's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, he presents his personal information first <u><em>to demonstrate that he can relate to being oppressed</em></u>. Wiesel presents his personal information first because as a survivor of the Holocaust he wants to tell people that neutrality favours the oppressor and silence encourages the tormentor. So he took side for all the people that suffer oppression around the world.
Answer:
I believe the answer is D
Explanation:
Normally there is one strong thesis and the rest of the passage is eveidence to support that thesis. However, this passage is just a bunch of theses put together in a passage. There is no evidence.
Answer:
B
Explanation:
It includes a few ideas but it doesn't exactly tells us about different types of plants, if it did it would've added the name of the plants, colour and fruits or vegetables they bear
I do not know the answer, but after looking it up it seems that someone else has asked this question, and someone else has answered. I'm putting the link to that question right here! --> (brainly.com/question/8921506)
Hope this helps!
This passage is a famous quote by John Stuart Mill from his book <em>On Liberty</em>. <em>On Liberty</em> is one of the most remarkable defenses of freedom of speech in political thought.
Mill begins by telling us that many people hold opinions for which they have no facts or grounds to defend them, even against superficial objections. Therefore, these people are completely convinced of certain beliefs they in fact should not believe.
Moreover, he believes that these people generally think it a bad thing to question those beliefs, as they were taught by an authority who they consider more knowledgeable than themselves. Therefore, they are incapable of rejecting an opinion in a well-thought out way (as they do not usually consider things wisely), and instead, when they reject an idea they do so in a rash way.
This people might be mistaken in their opinions, or they might be correct. However, even when they are correct, this should not be called "truth." A "truth" that is known in this way is simply another type of prejudice or superstition, as the process through which it was obtained was not one of honest and open dialogue.
