Answer:
Machiavelli claims that a leader must find a balance between a temperate and a cruel attitude to be successful. He makes a very effective argument. First, he uses deductive reasoning by stating a conclusion that he uses to prove his point. He says that if a leader is not cruel, his subjects will rebel and no one will obey the law. Second, his evidence is compelling. Machiavelli uses historical examples to support his ideas, which are clear and interesting to read. Finally, he uses sophisticated diction, creating a serious tone that provides a sense of authority. His reasoning, evidence, and diction all work together to support his claim, making his argument both horrifying and effective.
Explanation:
Answer: It was bordered by enemies on two fronts. Attack France in the West before Russia in the East had a chance to mobilize. Heavy casualties and little territorial gain.
Explanation:
Answer:
59%
Explanation:
Census data from 1960 illustrate the inequities of the county unit system. Although the rural counties accounted for only 32 percent of the state population by that year, they controlled 59 percent of the total unit vote
Answer:(B)that the city air became increasingly acidic the closer one came to town
Explanation
(A)The comparatives used in A are 'the closer ... the more. The correct way of writing this would be the more one came ... the more the city air became...'
Another <u><em>mistake in A is redundancy - 'more' and 'increasingly'.
</em></u>
(B)that the city air became increasingly acidic the closer one came to town
No redundancy. Conveys the meaning well.
(C)that coming closer to town, the city air became increasingly acidic.(example of dangling modifier)
(D)that the more the city air became increasingly acidic, the closer one was to town.(It is the example of inverse cause-effect.)
(E)the city air becoming increasingly acidic as one would come closer to town( use of <u>would come i</u>s wrong here)
I'm pretty sure the answer is b.) n<span>igeria.
</span>
