Answer:
Green’s argument uses effective rhetoric by using these components of rhetoric to create an argument that appeals to the audience.
Green establishes ethos by stating that the Equal pay bill is being considered by the Utah legislature. This infers that he has information on the legislature, and/or could be a part of it, firming his credibility.
Then, Green uses logos by showing you how the turn of events will happen if the Equal pay bill is accepted and enforced: “if businesses are forced to pay women the same as male earnings, that means they will have to reduce the pay for the men they employ". "If that happens, then men will have an even more difficult time earning enough to support their families”.
Finally, Green wraps it up by using pathos: “We should encourage our legislators to drop the whole notion. Let the marketplace determine what free-market forces should prevail. It is not the role of the government to dictate to businesses what they should pay anyway, either as a Minimum Wage or Equal pay for men and women.
Explanation:
Give the brainliest
The answer Is D. Ladders
-I think
The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument. My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of our self-conception and that commitment to it requires the rejection of official dogma. But how is that admittedly dogmatic belief different from any other dogma, such as the one inferring that freedom of expression stops at the border of the flag?
The crucial distinction is that the commitment to freedom of conscience and expression states the simplest and least self-contradictory principle that seems to capture our aspirations. Any other principle is hopelessly at odds with our commitment to freedom of conscience. The controversy surrounding the flag-burning case makes the case well.
The controversy will rage precisely because burning the flag is such a powerful form of communication. Were it not, who would care? Thus were we to embrace a prohibiton on such communication, we would be saying that the 1st Amendment protects expression only when no one is offended. That would mean that this aspect of the 1st Amendment would be of virtually no consequence. It would protect a person only when no protection was needed. Thus, we do have one official dogma-each American may think and express anything he wants. The exception is expression that involves the risk of injury to others and the destruction of someone else`s property. Neither was present in this case.
Answer:
Giorno
Explanation:
The full sentence is "Kono Giorno Giovanna niwa yume ga aru!"
In English it is "I Giorno Giovanna have a dream!"
The quote is from a popular anime called "Jojo's Bizzare Adventure"
