Answer:
Explanation:
Early in the morning, Jay Heinrichs sits in his kitchen, watching as his teenaged son George Heinrichs eats breakfast. Noticing the empty tube of toothpaste in the bathroom, he shouts, “George, who used all the toothpaste?” George shoots back, “The point is how we’re going to keep this from happening again.” Previously, Heinrichs has taught his son that the purpose of a good argument is to discuss the future tense. Heinrichs concedes George’s point, and then asks George to get some more toothpaste, which George does immediately. Considering this incident later, Heinrichs realizes that he won the argument by making George believe that he won the argument. George is happy to have corrected his father, and, because he’s feeling victorious, he goes to get some toothpaste.
Jay Heinrichs, the author and narrator of the book, likes to use examples from his personal life, especially his family life. By beginning with a banal-seeming example of the power of arguing, Heinrichs tries to establish a connection with his audience (his readers), most of whom, presumably, will be familiar with the kind of low-stakes, everyday arguments that Heinrichs mentions here. Notice also that Heinrichs’s argument with George reaches a clear resolution (unlike many arguments that people have in the course of a day). Heinrichs will show readers how to argue more intelligently and productively.
Active Themes
Ethos Theme Icon Pathos Theme Icon Logos Theme Icon Demonstrative vs. Deliberative Rhetoric Theme Icon
Rhetoric, the art of argument, is a vital tool for any parent with a moody child, Heinrichs says. Like it or not, arguing is a part of life: when people look at ads or listen to a politician’s speech, they’re bombarded with arguments. By studying rhetoric we can “decode” arguments, and learn how to craft arguments ourselves.
Answer:
C.Organize her arguments, starting with her strongest argument.
and
D.Pick the parts of the opposing argument that she can rebut.
Explanation:
Answer:
The significance of freedom in the story is that it means different things to different people and that sometimes, they don't realise that they don't have it until circumstances collaborate to communicate this to them.
Mrs Mallard was content with her life as it was until the misinformation regarding her husbands' death.
She had started to cry but then somehow realised that her husbands' death meant freedom to her. She mulled over the possibilities of this freedom. Freedom from having to do his biding most of the time. Freedom to do what she wanted, how she wanted, when she wanted.
Ironically, Brently Mallard who happened to be alive walks through the door and unintentionally triggers the event that would lead to the demise of this wife.
Could it be said that he too is free of such a woman who regardless of the love he has for her regards him as a restriction on her freedom?
Could it also be said that Mrs Mallard is finally free of her heart condition?
The Author cleverly presents freedom as an interesting dynamic here and makes use of the literary device of "Irony" in depicting the concept of freedom and it's cost.
Whether it is freedom as perceived by Mrs Mallard which she thought had come as a result of her husband's death; or
Freedom as perceived by the reader to Mrs Mallard from her heart condition which comes with her death; or
Freedom that may be inputted on Mr Mallard. "Freedom" from a woman who he loved but who had only him occasionally and who welcomed his death as an opportunity for freedom, in the end, it does appear that the author intends to portray the fact that freedom comes with a price.
Cheers!
In "Gandhi defend his beliefs" , he concludes with this sentence :
i wanted to avoid violence. Non violence is the first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed
From that sentence, clearly he wanted to conveyed to the people that he doesn't want to include violence in any of his movements
<span />
