Give me more of a focus on the topic and helps me understand the subject of various conversations
The three factors that could contribute to a source not being
credible is it ineptness, unreliable and unattractive which are the opposed
characteristics to what makes a source credibly valid and reliable or
trustworthy. The supposed characteristics can make the source invalid as simple
as having to read, comprehend and understand what it’s trying to say. In research
or formal study many authors are very direct to the point and persuasively
convincing in support to their results and outcomes. In addition, there are
other co-authors that can support such claims and suggestions.
I often say that we live in an age of trauma. There’s a simple way to think about that. The world is so messed up, we’re having to invent new forms of mental imbalance just to make sense of our own inability to cope with it. The world is so messed up it’s messing with our heads.
Machiavelli uses reasoning and an example as evidence in an argumentative structure to support his claim that a prince must destroy a city that is accustomed to freedom if he wants to hold it.
Explanation:
Machiavelli's 'The Prince' is a dogmatic book that offers pragmatic and often outlandishly authoritarian solutions to maintain the peace of the increasingly chaotic Italian cities of its time.
By giving an example of Pisa, he argues if the new Florentine prince is to hold on to the captured cities he must subdue their freedom and destroy the cities that are used to freedom.
If he allows them to exist as they are it would probably be that they will rebel eventually.
the answer to your question Is
A. all ready
