This argument illustrates the slippery slope fallacy as Leo Panchello was used to create a happy picture of how much hard work local business owners put in and then goes on to tell how the light rail would destroy the local business and ruin all of their hard work which brings a sad ending.
<h3>What is a fallacy?</h3>
This is known as a mistaken belief, a faulty or failed reasoning especially one based on unsound argument.
Hence, the fallacy makes the argument weak because there's no indication that a light rail would destroy a main local business in the town as when constructing a light rail, they do not tear up the street, instead, they make the light rail a part of the street
A slippery slope fallacy is a course of action that is rejected because there is little or no evidence that one insists to lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end.
Read more about<em> fallacy </em>here:
brainly.com/question/1971023
#SPJ1
To begin, Brutus’s speech was formal and more directed to the Romans. In his introduction, he starts with “Romans, countrymen, and lovers!” This was used to join everyone together and later help him justify Caesar’s death. Throughout the text, he describes Caesar as an “ambitious” man. Calling Caesar ambitious makes it seem that Caesar only thought about himself. On the other hand, Antony’s speech was more personal and sarcastic. In contrary to Brutus he opens his speech with “Friends, Romans, countrymen…”. This sets up his later statements of being Caesar’s friend. Throughout his speech, he uses paralipsis and repetition to poke at Brutus but at the same time save Caesar’s reputation. Throughout Antony’s speech, he uses devices, tactics, and his sympathy to his advantage. Brutus only had one point, which was that he killed Caesar for Rome, to stand on. All in all, Antony’s speech was better and more persuasive than Brutus's.
The third answer is correct (starting from top to bottom)
