Answer:
D. Every time you fail to donate, another child misses a meal.
Explanation:
There are three central rhetorical approaches: pathos, logos, and ethos. Pathos is an appeal to emotion; logos, to logic; ethos, to credibility.
D is the best example of pathos because it doesn't use logic (like B, which cites a statistic) or credibility (like A, which claims that dentists, a respectable source, recommend brushing). It uses an emotional appeal in claiming that lack of donations is linked to child hunger. All of these can be very persuasive; it's important to know your audience!
The totalitarian states usually don't allow any opposition parties to exist. If some people try to form a party, they usually end up in prison, are banished from the nation, or even murdered.
The reason why the totalitarian rulers prefer a one party system is in order to have all the power in the country, without having opposition that will constantly go public about the terrors and injustices that are happening. If there are more parties, than the people will start to support them, especially cause rarely who likes to live under a totalitarian ruler, thus the totalitarian ruler will face a situation where he/she will lose its power.
To permanently protect the people of the nation from unreasonable amendment proposals and ratifications
Answer:
The three types of persuasive authority which judges may use in cases of first impression are higher, peers, or lower courts in the hierarchy, or from other jurisdictions.
Explanation:
A case of first impression is an issue where the parties disagree on what the applicable law is, and there is no prior binding authority, so that the matter has to be decided for the first time. A first impression case may be a first impression in only a particular jurisdiction.
By definition, a case of first impression cannot be decided by precedent. Since there is no precedent for the court to follow, the court uses the plain language and legislative history of any statute that must be interpreted, holdings of other jurisdictions, persuasive authority and analogies from prior rulings by other courts, commentaries and articles by legal scholars, and the court's own logic and sense of justice.
