<span>Confucianism, Buddhism
would be my best guess... but out of the answers you listed they probably want Daoism and Confucianism.
Since Shinto is Japanese and Hinduism is Indian... those two are completely out of the question.
_____
</span>Daoism<span> isn't really a government influence... it embraces the philosophy of yin and yang. Good and Bad, without one the other cannot exist. Natural influences of a good and bad government doesn't really make a good governing philosophy. Confucianism was really based on good and virtuous, people live life in harmony and proprietary. He's missing the rules and laws of the Legalist system of government. Where it assumes all people are bad and without laws and rules everything would be in chaos. The First Emperor established the Legalist system in China, he was said to have buried alive hundreds of Confucian scholars and burned Confucian books... His reign was short lived, only 14 years. The next dynasty... the Han, governed with a combination of Legalist and Confucian type of government, lasted 426 years. This pretty much continued till the Tang dynasty when Buddhism a larger influence in society.</span><span />
Answer:Machiavelli’s realism
Niccolò Machiavelli, whose work derived from sources as authentically humanistic as those of Ficino, proceeded along a wholly opposite course. A throwback to the chancellor-humanists Salutati, Bruni, and Poggio, he served Florence in a similar capacity and with equal fidelity, using his erudition and eloquence in a civic cause. Like Vittorino and other early humanists, he believed in the centrality of historical studies, and he performed a signally humanistic function by creating, in La mandragola (1518; The Mandrake), the first vernacular imitation of Roman comedy. His unswerving concentration on human weakness and institutional corruption suggests the influence of Boccaccio; and, like Boccaccio, he used these reminders less as topical satire than as practical gauges of human nature. In one way at least, Machiavelli is more humanistic (i.e., closer to the classics) than the other humanists, for while Vittorino and his school ransacked history for examples of virtue, Machiavelli (true to the spirit of Polybius, Livy, Plutarch, and Tacitus) embraced all of history—good, evil, and indifferent—as his school of reality. Like Salutati, though perhaps with greater self-awareness, Machiavelli was ambiguous as to the relative merits of republics and monarchies. In both public and private writings—especially the Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio (1531; Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy)—he showed a marked preference for republican government, but in The Prince (1532) he developed, with apparent approval, a model of radical autocracy. For this reason, his goals have remained unclear.
Explanation:
Answer:
Judaism believes in the Oneness of God and does not believe He came in a human form:) Also, they believe in traditions, rituals, and prayers and actions to be able to speak to God.
Explanation:
Hope this helps!
Answer:
Pathos (appeal to emotion) is a way of convincing an audience of an argument by creating an emotional response to an impassioned plea or a convincing story. Logos (appeal to logic) is a way of persuading an audience with reason, using facts and figures. Ethos (sometimes called an appeal to ethics), then, is used as a means of convincing an audience via the authority or credibility of the persuader, be it a notable or experienced figure in the field or even a popular celebrity
Explanation:
logos= logical
pathos= emotional
ethos= ethical
The answer is Sunni and Shia
