The main way in which aristocracy differs from an oligarchy is that the former is a social class of people, while the latter refers to when a state is ruled by a small elite.
In the Declaration of Independence, one opposing claim Jefferson anticipates is that prudence would "dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes". Indeed, he says, and experience demonstrates that mankind would take all of the suffers, as long they are bearable, before changing the Government to which they are used to. But when a long trail of abuses and usurpations makes that Government despotic and not the system that guarantees the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is the duty of men to take down that government and establish a new one that guarantees those rights. And so he lists the abuses that the King's ruling has inflicted upon the colonies, such as imposing taxes, cutting off their trade, dissolving Representatives Houses when it didn't follow his wishes, and not re-establishing them after a long time, etc.
Jefferson is trying to demonstrate why it is fair and justifiable that the colonies break free from the English ruling after it didn't stop with its tyrannical actions towards them, when the colonists has petitioned it in the most humble way. If the civilized and lawful approaches weren't enough to reform the regime, then it is fair to take it down and build a new one.
Answer:
the order would be B, D, C, then A
Populism never recovered from the failure of 1896. For example, Tennessee’s Populist Party was demoralized by a diminishing membership, and puzzled and split by the dilemma of whether to fight the state-level enemy (the Democrats) or the national foe (the Republicans and Wall Street<span>). By 1900 the People’s Party of Tennessee was a shadow of what it once was. so the answer maybe D</span>
