The last option would be correct
Wong’s manager Rachel assumed that Wong was hardworking because he was Chinese.
Good luck:)
I tried my best to help
Huh ?? But I don’t know to be completely honest.
“Letter from a Birmingham Jail” Outline
I. Introduction
King’s thesis: Reasonable refutation of the white clergymen’s criticism of his direct action-nonviolent resistance campaign as “unwise and untimely.”
II. Body: Refutation
Refutes idea that he is an outside agitator that doesn’t belong in Birmingham
1. He was invited to Birmingham.
2. He has organizational ties in Birmingham
3. He has a right to fight injustice anywhere in the United States
Refutes idea that direct action is “unwise and untimely”
1. Not unwise:
a. Direct action campaign is the only alternative when negotiations fail due to white leaders refusing them.
Direct action creates tension that forces them to negotiate.
2. Not untimely:
a. Refutes idea that he should have given new administration (Boutwell) time to act by saying that Boutwell is still a segregationist and still will not change without pressure.
b. African Americans have waited more than 340 years for their rights! Can’t wait any longer (supports with list of injustices that arouse righteous anger in audience—pathos)
Refutes idea that he is hypocritically supporting some laws (Supreme Court integration of schools) while breaking others (segregation laws) by making a distinction between just and unjust laws (all of this is deductive reasoning)
1. Moral argument: Just laws fulfill God’s laws; unjust laws violate God’s laws; thus, segregation laws are unjust
2. Political argument:
a. Unjust laws = don’t apply to everyone; just laws = apply to everyone; thus, segregation laws are unjust
b. Unjust laws don’t follow democratic process; segregation laws violate democracy because blacks can’t vote, so they must be unjust.
c. Law can be just on paper, but applied unjustly (Parade law that put him in jail is just in letter but unjust when applied to violate constitution)
3. Conclusion: Therefore, we must break unjust laws because that shows the highest respect for law.
Justifies his breaking laws by citing historical examples of civil disobedience (Old Testament, Early Christians in Rome, Socrates, Boston Tea Party, Freedom Fighters against Hitler).
Expresses disappointment with the white moderate
1. Worse than rabid segregationists; greatest obstacle to freedom
2. Refutes idea that his actions create tension, as he only exposes existing tension so that it can be cured
3. Refutes idea that he causes violence by using causes argument and analogy of robber/robbed
4. Refutes idea that time itself will heal the problem by arguing that time is neutral and that people use it for good or ill
5. Refutes criticism of his extremism
a. King is really a moderate between two extremes of black action (do noting v. hate whites completely). He warns that without his movement, the extreme of hating whites will win out and cause more violence.
b. Oppressed blacks will express discontent (human), so without his non-violent methods, the natural consequence will be violence.
c. Extremism can be good and necessary (allusions to biblical and historical figures, esp. Christ)
6. Accommodation through recognition and praise of those whites who have helped his cause
Expresses disappointment with the church
1. Church leaders should see the justice in his movement, but they fail to do so and thus are inactive.
2. Modern church, in its mere reflection of society, has lost the power to change society that it once had. Thus, it is ineffectual and irrelevant.
3. Even though church leaders fail to act, he has faith in individual members who have worked with him.
4. He will succeed even without the church.
III. Conclusion
A. Refutes audience’s praise of police’s actions in Birmingham
B. Redirects praise to the “true heroes”—the civil rights demonstrators
C. Reestablishes a harmonious relationship with white clergymen using ethos and a final unifying vision of hope.
Answer:
is this free points?
Explanation:
if thats the case than thx soooo much, if not, then what was the question?
