In the article "Saudis Expand Regional Power as Others Falter" the author David D Kirkpatrick discusses the associate degree ironic shift from a democracy mentality back to a lucid autarchy comfort. it's believed that this paradigm shift is predicated on 2 distinctive contributors; foremost the "feebleness or near-collapse of the states around them, together with Asian nation, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Bahrain and Tunisia" and second the perseverance as well as significant funding of the recent Saudi order (Kirkpatrick D).
It is simply an entire<span> mess." For an</span><span> absolute </span>autarchy<span> tracing its </span>family<span> roots back </span>three hundred<span> years, </span>the Asian nation<span> is taking </span>a number one<span> role </span>within the<span> struggle to reshape that mess.</span> The surprising<span> outcome of the Arab Spring, </span>that<span> once stirred hopes for the rule of law and </span>trendy<span> democracy.</span>
<span>The analysts and diplomats say, is that the </span>ascendency<span> of the Saudis </span>is essentially<span> a byproduct of the feebleness or near-collapse of </span>such a lot of<span> the states around them, </span>together with Republic of Iraq<span>, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Bahrain, and </span>Tunisia.
<span>The Saudis </span>are shoring<span> Bahrain, and </span>are<span> fighting </span>aboard to<span /><span> support </span>the govt.<span> in </span>national capital.
<span>Billions of </span>bucks<span> from Saudi coffers </span>are<span> sustaining friendly governments in Egypt and Jordan.</span>
So there’s this moment in the play Julius Caesar where one Roman nobelman says to another, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves, that we are underlings.” And in the context of the play, that quotation makes perfect sense—these two guys did not suffer some unjust destiny; they made decisions that led them to their fates.<span>
However, that quote has since been decontextualized over and over and used universally as a way of saying that the fault is not in the stars (i.e., fate/luck/whatever) but in individual people.</span>
Answer:
The answer is below
Explanation:
According to Paco Underhill, the author of the book titled "The Science of Female Shopping," stated the seven things store windows should be and do are the following:
1. Store windows should exploit their size
2. Stores should use their windows to tell a story
3. Store windows should face the customers
4. Store windows should concentrate on big customers
5. Store windows should cater to pets
6. Store Windows should cater to women
7. Store windows should make their layouts easier.
I think its have.
Tell me if I'm right
The correct answer is answer D ("Slippery slope").
This type of fallacy presents itself when the clear core of a discussion is taken out of proportion by suggesting a possible chain of negative events that could come as a direct consequence of that core element.
In this case, the core element of the discussion is whether or not a school should determine how their students should dress, <u>which is a reasonably small imposition</u>. The argument against it suggests that if we give a school that right, they would be likely to also try imposing what students can say outside of class, <u>which is a wild exaggeration</u>. It's clear how out-of-propotion this argument is as the school would have no way of monitoring students outside school and there's no clear reason to suspect the school wants this level of control anyways.
Looking out for this type of wild exaggerations that try to relate two very different events and disguise them as a cause-and-effect realtionship is the best way of recognizing the slippery slope fallacy.
Hope this helps!
