Could you explain your answer more thoroughly...
Then i could help you.
As history changes, and people/nations evolve, it becomes necessary for them to be independent of any other country/power on which they relied. They feel the need to break those connections that bound them, and to finally emerge as a country of its own, a country which doesn't need to count on others in order to thrive and prosper. God has given everyone equal rights, and thus no country has more rights than any other. This newly founded country will become respectable through its own effort, and not through the help/or the dominion of another country. The Americans felt impelled to separate from their mother country, Britain, and eventually create a dream of their own.
All men are equal - God has given them those unalienable rights. The people are those who make decisions - there is a Government, but if it becomes destructive, it is the people who decide how to organize the country.
Jefferson talks about the downsides of being a British colony, and thus creates a chance for the Americans to create a country in which these rules needn't be followed so blindly. They are free to do what they wish, because it is their God-given right.
There have been about a dozen more or less famous movie adaptations of Shakespeare's tragedy. Most of them were more or less faithful to the original plot and setting. One of the foremost was Orson Welles' 1948 adaptation, with himself in the title role. Welles wanted to show the broader context of political struggle with the introduction of religious struggle - so he introduced a new character, The Holy Man, who was to represent the new religious force of Christianity juxtaposed to the old paganism that the Weird Sisters embodied. However, Akira Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood" (1957) was arguably the most successful adaptation from a cinematic point of view. Kurosawa changed the setting to medieval Japan, with Japanese aristocracy representing the Macbeth couple. Thus Kurosawa universalized the theme of political corruption and personal greed, showing them in an entirely different milieu.
Answer: “A Modest Proposal” is one of the most brilliant, well-constructed, and effective satires ever written.
Explanation:
An objective take on a literary piece would be one that simply states what the piece is about or what its purpose was.
A subjective take however, would include personal opinions and analysis of the piece. This is what happens in this option. In describing the piece as brilliant and well-constructed, the take includes personal opinions of how the book is so this is a subjective take.
I think it might be acceptance
