The best answer would be:
<span>C. When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept: / Ambition should have been made of sterner stuff.
Pathos is when you appeal to the emotional boundary of the audience in order to convince them. This is what anthony did in order to trigger the people into thinking that brutus and others have done something terrible. </span>
Answer:
A). Have the journalist give the accurate account of the incident and apologize for lying to viewers.
Explanation:
Ethics is associated with the moral principles like fairness, equality, integrity, respect for individual rights, etc. that control a person's conduct/behavior. Thus, an ethical action must consider these values of giving equal worth(respect, justice, and opportunity) to each individual.
In the given situation, the most ethical action that the network must take would be 'allowing the journalist to provide accurate details of the incident and apologize for the lie that he made to the viewers' as this would give him a fair opportunity to rectify his mistake. It reflects that the <u>network aims to give equal respect and worth to every individual and nurtures relations through advancing justice</u>. Thus, this action would not only reduce the damage caused by journalist to network's reputation but rather enhance it(through its ethical move). Thus, <u>option A</u> is the correct answer.
Answer:
George Washington was an American soldier, statesman, and Founding Father, who served as the first president of the United States from 1789 to 1797.
Answer:
C. Set easy goals. You are more likely to achieve goals that don't take too much work
Explanation:
SMART goals are an acronym for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-Based.
Therefore, the guideline that does NOT fall within the framework of setting SMART goals is by setting easy goals.
This is because, according TO SMART goals, things have to be well thought of and planned, and not by selecting easy goals
This question refers to the article "Do Juvenile Killers Deserve Life Behind Bars?" by Nina Totenberg.
In this article, Totenberg discusses whether life in prison is too harsh a punishment for juvenile killers. The author does not take a position on this matter, and instead focuses on presenting arguments that describe both sides of the question. The main purpose of the author is to encourage readers to think about the subject because legislation needs to be passed soon, and this is a difficult question that deserves consideration. She shows how important this matter is when she says:
<em>"Two years ago, the court used the same rationale when it struck down the penalty of life without parole for nonhomicide crimes committed by juveniles. But in Tuesday's cases, the court faces the question of life without parole in homicide cases... the big question before the Supreme Court on Tuesday is whether life without the possibility of parole is itself an unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment when it is applied to juveniles."</em>
