The right option is They outline reasons that support the claim that "it becomes necessary... to dissolve the political bands" with England. According to Thomas Jefferson, all men are born with the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The state of things back then, with the mentioned political bands with England, were preventing the American colonies to achieve or fully enjoy such rights. First off, governments are instituted from the consent of the governed people; this is not possible under a king (kings, and particularly kings from European empires such as France and England, used to have absolute power and were despots). Then, in order to establish a new government which will set rules and regulations for the governed ones to abide by on the pretense that such regulations and rules aim at protecting and benefitting them (which is what national Constitutions are for), the people has a right to throw off a regime threatening their independent lives, liberties and pursuit of happiness. Lastly, it is stated that the present King of Great Britain does not respect the rights or self-determination of people living in any of the initial Thirteen United States of America and, according to Jefferson, seeks the establishment of an absolute Tyranny. All the above reasons led to the necessity of cutting bonds from Great Britain.
Answer:
metaphor
Explanation:
it compares infinite stories to treasure
Answer:
Straw man fallacy.
Explanation:
Fallacy is the use of wrong or invalid argument in the construction of any reasoning to make one's point. It typically involves the use of faulty arguments, which neither is correct nor valid.
Straw man fallacy is the form of fallacy wherein the person giving the argument is basing his points in a such a way that he seems to be refuting his opponent's points. But in reality, he is just refuting an argument that is not even presented by the opponent. In short, he is refuting an argument that is baseless or invisible. It 's like attacking a "straw man", useless and pointless.
From the excerpt, we see the speaker is in favor of hanging the man. While it may be that this "Jones" may have argued for a trial for the accused. The issue of hanging wasn't part of the argument, and not even mentioned. But the speaker is asking for that, thus bringing into the fore the issue of 'hanging' which wasn't even spoken or discussed about.
What does the ending paragraph have to be about Nixon and Watergate? If it’s a conclusion, what were your key points?
Both passages explain information but only one passage offers an opinion so its c
