The first item states: "When I was young, homosexuality was a taboo subject, so I don't see why gay rights supporters are always blabbing about it today."
This statement illustrates the logical fallacy known as False Comparison. It assumes that the idea of homosexuality being a taboo subject in the past is comparable to the actions of gay rights supporters today. However, these two things are not directly related or comparable to each other. The fact that homosexuality was a taboo subject in the past does not negate the importance or validity of discussing gay rights today.
The second item states: "I don't understand why my sons and their wives are always going out to eat. When they were kids, my wife made them good, home-cooked meals every day."
This statement demonstrates the logical fallacy of False Cause. It assumes that the change in behavior (going out to eat) is solely caused by the past actions (home-cooked meals) without considering other factors such as personal preferences, convenience, or lifestyle changes. The speaker establishes a causal relationship between the two unrelated events without sufficient evidence or logical reasoning.
In summary, the first item represents False Comparison while the second item represents False Cause. It is essential to recognize these fallacies to ensure logical and rational thinking in our arguments and statements.
The play "ECHO" by Joseph T. Shipley is a dialogue between two characters, Harold and Mary, that explores themes of identity, love, and self-discovery. The play also incorporates the perspectives of two additional characters, "Myself" (representing reason) and "I" (representing emotion). The setting is the interior of a brain, and the characters communicate through sharp and often conflicting conversations.
The play begins with Myself and I engaging in a conversation about the pursuit of money versus following one's dreams. Myself emphasizes the importance of practicality and facts, while I argues for the value of misunderstanding and the enjoyment of life. The stage then lights up to reveal Harold and Mary at a restaurant table, discussing the passage of time and reflecting on their past choices. Their conversation is interrupted by Myself and I's ongoing debate.
As the play unfolds, the characters delve into topics such as love, regret, and personal growth. Harold questions Mary's intentions and accuses her of trying to shape him into a different person based on her previous relationship with John. There are moments of tension and jealousy, accompanied by Myself and I's ongoing conflicting opinions.
Towards the end of the play, a new scene is introduced where Mary is in bed and Harold is undressing. Mary calls out the name "John" in her sleep, which startles Harold. They briefly discuss Harold's play idea about a man who discovers he is an echo, but ultimately dismiss it as a foolish thought. The play concludes with Mary settling back to sleep and the curtain falling.
In summary, "ECHO" explores the complexities of relationships, personal identity, and the pursuit of happiness. The characters navigate conflicting emotions and differing perspectives, ultimately highlighting the challenges and choices individuals face in their lives.
The author's main purpose in writing this article is to discuss the debate surrounding the constitutionality of imposing life without parole sentences on juveniles convicted of homicide. The author presents arguments from both sides of the debate and provides evidence and examples to support these arguments.
One piece of evidence that showcases the author's purpose is the statement, "Bryan Stevenson, the lawyer who represents the boys in both of these cases, will make two basic arguments before the Supreme Court. The first is that a mandatory punishment of life without parole for a 14-year-old is cruel and unusual punishment because the defendant's age and background are irrelevant and cannot mitigate punishment." This shows that one of the objectives of the article is to present the argument against the imposition of life without parole sentences on juveniles.
Furthermore, the author discusses cases of juveniles who have been rehabilitated and highlights success stories to support the argument against life without parole for young offenders. For instance, the article mentions individuals like Scott Filippi, Raphael Johnson, and Lawrence Wu, who turned their lives around after being involved in serious crimes during their youth. These examples provide evidence that supports the belief in the potential for juvenile offenders to rehabilitate and change.
Overall, the author aims to inform readers about the ongoing Supreme Court cases and the question of whether life without parole sentences for juveniles should be considered cruel and unusual punishment. The article presents both sides of the argument and emphasizes the potential for rehabilitation and the different level of culpability and responsibility attributed to juveniles in the criminal justice system.
Answer: 440 grams for 1.54 is the better value
Explanation:
Take the price and divide by the number of grams
1.54 / 440 =0.0035 per gram
1.26 / 340 =0.003705882 per gram
0.0035 per gram < 0.003705882 per gram
10
Get Answer
1
