You could say that he appealed to pathos. It's an appeal to emotion while ethos is to credibility. He used pathos to speak about sad things like secession and about the evils of slavery and why it should end. He didn't have to appeal to credibility because he was already the president so everyone knew why he was competent.
<span />
Hmm, I kinda can’t help with 4 paragraphs BUT I did look this up “A land stalemate: contrary to the expectations of several parties, the war just couldn’t be finished with a one-two punch combination: for the Germans, it was Paris, then Russia. The Entente, in particular the French, had their own one-two punch combination (Plan XVII) that was a catastrophic failure. All sides kept on fighting, forcing each other into a static war all sides knew it would be very difficult to win (therefore, their respective one-two punch strategy).
A strategic stalemate: the German invasion of Belgium meant that the equilibrium of power would be broken until this country would be restored to its position as a buffer, and with Germany unwilling to cede control of Belgium (for its own strategic reasons[1]) meant that the Entente just could not cut a deal with the Central Empires. This meant…
…a diplomatic stalemate: without the will to compromise, the situation kept going as long as the combatants were willing to fight to keep their strategic goals, rejecting several attempts to reach a ‘peace without victors of losers’, as Pope Benedict XV proposed to the combatants in August 1917.
Finally, there was the domestic situation: all powers had invested a lot of efforts to convince the respective populations that only victory would make all these sacrifices worthwhile. The situation was particularly difficult in Germany: unlike the Entente, with far more democratic governments who could always place the decision to end the war on the population’s desires, the far more authoritarian German Empire could only blame its leadership for the failure: not winning the war would mean, not the fall of the government and an election, but the collapse of the entire system and the destruction of the upper level of its political class, by exile or death.[2] Austria-Hungary was in a similar, but even worse situation: not winning the war would be the fall of the Habsburg dynasty, together with the destruction of the Empire as institution.” This is from quora
Answer:
C) Charles martel led armies in the battle at Poitier in 732.
Explanation:
The battle of Poitiers was also known as
The battle Battle of Tours. It occurred in 732 between Charles Martel who was the ruler of the Frankish kingdoms and Muslim invaders from Spain.
Charles martel led his armies to fight the Muslim invaders from Spain who were planning an onslaught . He eventually won the battle and restored normalcy in the kingdom.
Answer: Ruled in favor of linda brown
Muslims view Jesus as prophet, or messenger of god, as opposed to Christians believing he is the son of god. What this suggests about the Islamic faith is that they believe strongly in the oneness and supremeness of god and do not associate any partners with god.
