Answer:
The reason why I personally disagree with this statement is that Mark Antony's speech wasn’t very good and the crowd was just written by Shakespeare to be suddenly convinced.
Explanation:
if you were to remove the easily swayed audience and replace it with a more objective audience,Mark Antony's speech would not still stand up as a convincing work of rhetoric.
The reason why I personally disagree with this statement is that Mark Antony's speech wasn’t very good and the crowd was just written by Shakespeare to be suddenly convinced. So I feel if the crowd were actually normal people the story could be different they wouldn’t be definitely so .
Athanasius thought of the gold as an opportunity to help people whereas John fled from the scene as if he was being chased by a monster thinking that taking gold out of somewhere was a sin.
<u>Explanation:</u>
- Athanasius wanted to take the gold as he saw no sin in helping the neighbor population with it but everything John felt was fear as soon as he saw the gold.
- John was a man of simple ethics and lifestyle and didn't want any complications to his life.
- Athanasius was a man of his own doings and always liked to think otherwise. He believed the bag of gold was a gift from an angel.
- John believed in changing things for people by on's hard work and determination.
- Both the brothers varied with different perspectives on life.
The best statement that explains the development of Madame Defarge is Madame Defarge takes action and leads a group of women revolutionaries.
Answer:
In the cornfield, Gulliver is terrified when he runs into a group of the “monsters” carrying giant scythes. As he tries to escape them, he compares himself to a Lilliputian in a human world. (this is for what I remember)
The other option of the answer
