C) 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 anything to do with her. thus option C is correct.
<h3>Why British rule of American colonies?</h3>
Although each colony had its own government, the British king maintained power over them. Many colonists were irate by the 1770s because they lacked self-government. This implied that they were unable to rule themselves and establish their own rules. The king demanded that they pay enormous taxes.
According to Paine's claim in Option C, America would have actually been better off if it had not been under British rule. According to him, America's progress and ability to prosper even more were really hampered by its rule by the British. Both options A and B make the case that America needs Britain to succeed. Option A claims that for America to be happy, a relationship with Britain is crucial. America is compared to a child in Option B. According to this, a child should never consume meat if they can get by on milk alone. America should therefore just require Britain. Although Paine evidently finds this absurd, the premise does not support the claim.
Learn more about British rule here:
brainly.com/question/3203295
#SPJ1
number 3 is send number 5 is touches 10 is buy
Answer:
the narrative is told by an adult Scout in a retrospective manner, the reader is provided with more introspection than would be the case if the young Scout were the narrator/participant. Still, even with this added adult element, Scout as a young girl is obviously precocious, having learned to read simply from sitting on her father's knee as he peruses his Mobile Register every evening
Explanation:
