Citizens of DePaul, I come to you the day before our mayoral election in support of Edward Slansky. Edward Slansky is not only a good friend of mine but also the candidate who epitomizes the values that the citizens of DePaul hold dear. He stands in stark contrast to Craig White, a candidate who doesn’t hold the concerns of DePaul citizens in his heart. I urge you to vote for Edward Slansky, the better choice for mayor of DePaul.
First and foremost, Edward Slansky is the better-qualified candidate for the position of mayor. He served on the DePaul Planning Commission for four years and was a strong voice in opposing the building of a megastore in DePaul that would have driven several locally run stores out of business. It was Edward Slansky’s dedication and hard work that saved our town from being taken over and disrupted by this large retail chain. For the past four years, Edward Slansky has also been on the DePaul Town Council and has treated his duties with the highest regard. He understands how politics in DePaul works, and he is committed to doing what is best for DePaul. In contrast to Edward Slansky and his vast experience, Craig White has very little expertise that would help him in running the town. White has never served on any boards or commissions for the city, and he has held the opposite view from those on the town council on just about every issue. Needless to say, he is not a man who will work to support the citizens of DePaul.
Citizens of DePaul, if you look at the situation from my perspective, you will see that it is obvious that Edward Slansky holds DePaul dear to his heart. He will do anything to preserve its charm, integrity, and soul. Please join me in voting for my friend Edward Slansky for mayor of DePaul on Tuesday. It will be a decision you will not regret.
I: Both hold that humans have a function and that virtue is necessary for its fulfillment. II: Both hold that certain sorts of actions are intrinsically wrong and that we can know that they are by intellectual apprehension and reason. III: Both hold that things have natures, that their natures determine what is good for them and what is bad for them, and that wickedness is contrary to human nature.
<h3>Yes, it was an essential measure in spite of the hardships it had brought about.</h3>
Explanation:
Yes, it was an essential measure in spite of the hardships it had brought about because <u>no vaccination or antiviral drug has been found to cure Corona virus yet.</u> Scientists and doctors are still battling to find a cure and therefore, <u>the governments around the world cannot risk people socializing.</u>
I would suggest governments to let<u> young and healthy individuals to continue working</u> while <u>monitoring senior and older people as they are more susceptible to the virus</u>. The economy cannot be halted for long as people need to earn and keep the income flow running. Many countries have been affected severely due to lockdown and many lives are at stake.
Thus, I would suggest young and healthy people to resume working and earning.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 address the counterclaim of the author’s argument by stating a common reason that people voluntour and then shoot them down with facts from their research.
