Though Brutus’ speech was logical and concise and he thought that the crowd would rally to his cause, he failed to gain. Brutus was demanded the people to listen hear him. He tried to win the people over and support through logical explanations. He listed down the reasons for killing Caesar and was very concise in his speech as he believed the truth will convince the people and rally to his cause. The problem was the people didn’t connect with his arguments and he was too aloof in his approach that he failed to gain their support and he should make a speech wherein he had a personal connection with the crowd.Anthony on the other hand asked the people to hear him. His agreement of the senate’s actions was for the subtle purpose of discrediting all that they said. Listing down the achievements of Caesar, he was all manipulating the crowd by appealing to their emotion. As he made his speech, he was crying and this moved the crowd enabling him to win them over. Anthony was the better orator because of his use of emotion and facts.<span>
</span>
Hi i can’t see the question can u copy and paste and reply to me
It contains a contradiction it concludes Gandhi’s argument it makes use of figurative language it explicitly states Gandhi’s purpose
Today I cleaned my room, played softball and went to a concert.
This is the correction I can provide for you.
This is not true. At many points during the holocaust, people (particularly children) banded together to escape the concentration camps.
