Samuel Adams was agitated by the presence of regular soldiers in the town. He and the leading Sons of Liberty publicized accounts of the soldiers’ brutality toward the citizenry of Boston. On February 22, 1770 a dispute over non-importation boiled over into a riot. Ebenezer Richardson, a customs informer was under attack. He fired a warning shot into the crowd that had gathered outside of his home, and accidentally killed a young boy by the name of Christopher Sneider. Only a few weeks later, on March 5, 1770, a couple of brawls between rope makers on Gray’s ropewalk and a soldier looking for work, and a scuffle between an officer and a whig-maker’s apprentice, resulted in the Boston Massacre. In the years that followed, Adams did everything he could to keep the memory of the five Bostonians who were slain on King Street, and of the young boy, Christopher Sneider alive. He led an elaborate funeral procession to memorialize Sneider and the victims of the Boston Massacre. The memorials orchestrated by Samuel Adams, Dr. Joseph Warren, and Paul Revere reminded Bostonians of the unbridled authority which Parliament had exercised in the colonies. But more importantly, it kept the protest movement active at a time when Boston citizens were losing interest.
Answer:
peripheral; central
Explanation:
The peripheral route to persuasion is described as one of the types routes to persuasion in which a particular listener or person tends to decide whether he or she needs to agree with the specific message that is based on any other cues apart from the strength of message's ideas or arguments.
The central route to persuasion is described as one of the different types of the route to persuasion in which an individual is being persuaded by the specific content of the message delivered.
In the question above, Suzy is persuaded via the peripheral route whereas Sally is persuaded via the central route to persuasion.
Answer:
Marbury v. Madison, arguably the most important case in Supreme Court history, was the first U.S. Supreme Court case to apply the principle of "judicial review" -- the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution.
