THIS ISN'T THE ANSWER, only adding on to the question. Excerpt: When I addressed the Congress on the 26th of February last, I thought that it would suffice to assert our neutral rights with arms, our right to use the seas against unlawful interference, our right to keep our people safe against unlawful violence. But armed neutrality, it now appears, is impracticable. Because submarines are in effect outlaws when used as the German submarines have been used against merchant shipping, it is impossible to defend ships against their attacks as the law of nations has assumed that merchantmen would defend themselves against privateers or cruisers, visible craft giving chase upon the open sea.
It is common prudence in such circumstances, grim necessity indeed, to endeavor to destroy them before they have shown their own intention. They must be dealt with upon sight, if dealt with at all. The German government denies the right of neutrals to use arms at all within the areas of the sea which it has proscribed, even in the defense of rights which no modern publicist has ever before questioned their right to defend. The intimation is conveyed that the armed guards which we have placed on our merchant ships will be treated as beyond the pale of law and subject to be dealt with as pirates would be.
Armed neutrality is ineffectual enough at best; in such circumstances and in the face of such pretensions it is worse than ineffectual: it is likely only to produce what it was meant to prevent; it is practically certain to draw us into the war without either the rights or the effectiveness of belligerents. There is one choice we cannot make, we are incapable of making: we will not choose the path of submission and suffer the most sacred rights of our nation and our people to be ignored or violated. The wrongs against which we now array ourselves are no common wrongs; they cut to the very roots of human life.
Answer:
You did not provide any answer choices, but.... an elegy is a poem of serious reflection, typically a lament for the dead.
Explanation:
The correct answer is -ic.
When you add the suffix -ic to the root phon, you get the word phonic, which means 'something that has the characteristics of sound.' If you add the suffix -al to phon to create phonal, it means something related to sound, which is not the exact same meaning (so that is a wrong option).
Words phonen and phonly don't exist, so -en and -ly are wrong options as well.
Answer:
The ironic part is where it says "thought we were going to have to get on without you, tessie"
Explanation:
This only becomes ironic after the reader has finished with the story and can understand what has happened because at the end Tessie "wins" the lottery.
Answer: Nixon planned to officially resign at noon on the day following his speech.
