The answer is A) Vassal. Hope this helps :D
The heliocentric model was generally rejected by the ancient philosophers for three main reasons:
1) If the Earth is rotating about its axis, and orbiting around the Sun, then the Earth must be in motion. However, we cannot ``feel'' this motion. Nor does this motion give rise to any obvious observational consequences. Hence, the Earth must be stationary.
—————————————
2) If the Earth is executing a circular orbit around the Sun then the positions of the stars should be slightly different when the Earth is on opposite sides of the Sun. This effect is known as parallax. Since no stellar parallax is observable (at least, with the naked eye), the Earth must be stationary. In order to appreciate the force of this argument, it is important to realize that ancient astronomers did not suppose the stars to be significantly further away from the Earth than the planets. The celestial sphere was assumed to lie just beyond the orbit of Saturn.
—————————————
3)The geocentric model is far more philosophically attractive than the heliocentric model, since in the former model the Earth occupies a privileged position in the Universe.
Answer:
This is an opinion!
Explanation:
Okay, so we all know the Articals of Confederation were too weak and it made the government crumble. Shay's Rebellion is what proved this. So it's obvious the government needs to change, but should you keep the Articals?? That is your opinion.
If completely scrap:
"Hello, my fellow delegates. We all know the Articals of Confederation is not the best work. We can't fund the army, states are going against each other, and the people are all rather poor. There is no way we can fix this without starting over! There is no way we can stand by this without our government crumbling. We all worked so hard to have life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but we can only have that if our government is stronger."
If just revise:
"Hello, my fellow delegates. We all know the Articals of Confederation is not our best work, but we can't just scrap it completely! We only need to edit it. It has it's pros, like declaring war! We can't have too strong of a government, or else all we fought for would be for nothing! The Articals were thoughtfully written out, and just scrapping it would be a complete waste."
Either one is fine, you can use whichever! Try rewriting it in your own words, and be creative. Hope this helps! :))
The carrier Hall's profession characterizes him as a working
man
His dialogue characterizes him as a man who isn't
well-educated
His actions characterize him as a man who likes to gossip
Therefore, we can conclude that the carrier Hall's
profession, dialogue, and actions all characterize him as a working man who
isn't well-educated and likes to gossip.
