Answer:
Henry presented his speech on March 23, 1775, which was before the Revolutionary War began whereas Paine wrote months after the war began. Henry’s audience was the Members of the Virginia Convention, top-tier government officials who would be responsible to call for war: “By custom, Henry addressed himself to the Convention’s president, Peyton Randolph of Williamsburg.” Paine, on the other hand, aimed his speech as the American public in general: “I call not upon a few, but upon all.” Henry’s speech was the trigger that sent America into the war. It only took a month after his speech that the Revolutionary War officially began. Paine’s speech, on the contrary, was a motivation booster to recruit more people into the army to fight in the war; there were already a large number of soldiers in the fight. Henry did the much harder task of persuading the government to sent a country, millions of people, into a war that may fail and cause sizable number of deaths.
Explanation:
Essentially Henry's was a catalyst for the American people/member of the Virginia Convention to what to go to war. While, Paine's speech was supposed to help with morale and to convince more civilians to go to war.
Answer: The influence of Elvis on Rock and Roll
Explanation: A short paper is a small work in which the author chooses a topic that makes significant contributions. Nevertheless, it must have a maximum of 4 pages of content. To summarize the whole history of Rock and Roll in America or Elvis's life would most likely get out of topic. Therefore, the topic "The influence of Elvis on Rock and Roll" would be the most appropriate for a concise and well done short paper, since it would address both of the other topics in a precise manner.
Answer:
I don't know what you are saying
The statement basically states “Books should show us the real world and not a fantasy where we are thought to believe things. It must guide us in our time on Earth.” You are supposed to provide your opinion on what you think.
I would write something like this:
Literature has been around for centuries, maybe even millenniums. It has brought people out of the depths of despair and helped them over come problems in day-to- day life. There are all kinds of books out there - fantasy, adventure, romance, but should all those books be forgotten and thrown out for man only to read non-fictional books that are factual rather than interesting?
On one hand, books should be used as a tool for living. They should be informative and contain facts that could benefit us through out our lifetime. An interesting quote is, ‘Knowledge is the key to life’ therefore reading non-fiction books will help us in the future and reflect our actions when we grow up.
On the other hand, books have been brought to life to transport a person away from his troubles into a fictional world, where they are happy and blissful. Taking away such books and reading only factual information will not benefit a humans mind, for they will grow old and grumpy; they will obtain a lot of information but they will be dissatisfied with life - so what is the point of that? Moreover, books are books. No matter the genre or the origination of the book, it will teach us grammar and vocabulary which is vital for a human to know; it will make us emotionally happy and we will still gain knowledge from it.
In my opinion, Forster is wrong because a work of literature MUST provide a scope for the imagination and it must alter reality a little but for us to imagine - for without imagination, we are nothing.
I hope this helps, and please tell me what grade you got as I would love to know:))