Professional football is the modern day equivalent of the Roman gladiatorial games. Therefore, since it was expected that gladiators would kill their opponents, no one should complain if professional football players injure or kill their opponents
What will be an ideal response?
Inductive, weak
You might also like to view...
The word Sanhedrin actually means "advisors."
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
"An FBI study of thirty-five serial killers [killers of several people, not all at once] revealed that twenty-nine were attracted to pornography and incorporated it into their sexual activity, which included serial rape and murder." This assertion, taken from an antipornography ad, seems to have been intended to show that pornography is a causal factor of serial rape and murder. Does it show that?
What will be an ideal response?
Answer the following statement(s) true (T) or false (F)
1.Romans was written by Paul to the first congregation he founded and visited frequently. 2.Paul argues that the Torah fails to effect a right relationship with God; it serves only to make one conscious of sin. 3.In the Book of Genesis, the narrator never uses the words sin, evil, rebellion, fall from grace, disobedience, punishment, or damnation. These terms are interpretive and were supplied by later theologians. 4.Paul asserts the Torah is "spiritual," but human beings are "unspiritual" and enslaved by sin. 5.Paul reveals himself to be uniquely sinful amongst humans in his long passage (Romans 7:7-25), detailing all his sins.
A) Discuss any instances of nonargumentative persuasion or pseudoreasoning and explain any slanting techniques you find in the following passage. (We'll comment on features we find obscure, unusual, or tricky.) B) Rewrite the passage in language that is as emotively neutral as possible but still retains the same informational content."What kind of crazy political system is it where a man who wants to run for president must begin by withdrawing from public life? It's become an American tradition, dating perhaps back to Richard Nixon in 1962. Gary Hart followed the pattern when he 'declared his "interest" in the presidency' (as the Washington Post chastely put it) by announcing that he won't run for reelection to the Senate this year. Good luck to Hart. I voted for him once before and
wouldn't mind voting for him again. But really. Is this necessary?"-"TRB from Washington," in The New Republic What will be an ideal response?