Answer:
The excerpts which show that Queen Elizabeth's response to the Parliament's request was rhetoric are:
1. The realm shall not remain destitute of any heir that may be a fit governor, and peradventure more beneficial to the realm.
2. For though I be never so careful of your well-doing, and mind ever so to be, yet may my issue grow out of kind, and become perhaps ungracious.
Explanation:
Queen Elizabeth responded to the parliament quite persuasively. She appeals using logos to persuade the audience and make her point clear to them. She convinces them that she is capable enough to rule alone. She appeals them to give her strength.
She said that Parliament should not worry that she is not married or doesn't have any child. Having one doesn't guarantee that the heir would be competent enough to rule. She is herself quite capable to rule effectively and is a capable leader.
Answer:
Editorial of Commendation.
Explanation:
An editorial can be defined as an article that presents the opinion of the editorial board, publisher, or senior writer on a subject, current event or a particular issue. There are different types of editorials and these includes;
I. Editorial of Interpretation.
II. Editorial of Information.
III. Editorial of Criticism.
IV. Editorial of Entertainment.
VI. Mood editorial.
VII. Editorial of Argumentation.
VIII. Editorial of Commendation
Editorial of Commendation are praises, which commends or gives tribute to a person or organization. It is typically based on accomplishments, deeds, or worthwhile projects that have been executed in the past by an individual or organization.
For example, a laurel given to Barcelona football club for winning the UEFA champions league.
I believe it is a categorical argument, however I am not sure.
It is reliant on the intensity of the attack as well as the power of the attacking nation.
some countries have been attacked and literally never fought back but surrendered if the attacking nation is more powerful in terms of military power.
in case the intensity of the attack can be absorbed, a country can also opt for diplomacy as war is the ultimate sanction in international relation.
in case the country feels it has the capacity to protect its sovereignty then fighting back is the only option.
another way to look at it would be one of the most difficult issues in foreign policy is deciding when the United States should exercise military force. Most people think that military force may be used if a vital national interest of the United States is threatened. The difficulty lies in getting people to agree on what constitutes a vital national interest.
Almost everyone would agree that an attack by a foreign country on the United States threatens a vital interest. Many also would think a vital interest threatened if a country attacked a nation that we had signed a security agreement with. Disagreements emerge when the threat involves the free flow of a precious commodity, such as oil. They also surface over situations that do not pose an immediate threat to U.S. security but could imperil it in the future, such as when a region becomes unstable and the instability may lead to wider conflicts. Another area of debate opens over human rights and humanitarian efforts. The United States is the most powerful democratic nation on Earth. Does that mean we always have a vital interest in promoting human rights and democracy? Or, should we stay out of the affairs of other nations unless they threaten other of our national interests?
Another issue arises over how the United States should exercise military force. Some argue that America should never act unilaterally, but should only act with others, allies or particularly with the United Nations. They believe America has a strong interest in upholding international law. Others agree that it is appropriate to act in coalitions, but they think demanding it in every circumstance would paralyze America’s role as a world leader.
C i’m so sorry if that’s wrong tho
