Question is in the picture attached.

To make a conclusion whether Helen Keller would or would not have learned without Anne Sullivan would be an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Explanation:

There is no doubt about Anne Sullivan’s role in Helen Keller’s learning, but saying she would not have learned had Sullivan not come to teach her would be a hasty conclusion. There was every chance that if not Sullivan, someone else, may be after a year or more, had come to teach Helen Keller. And who knows she might have learned even more and faster without Sullivan. Reaching this or its opposite conclusion would be a fallacy of appeal to ignorance.

Appeal to ignorance is a fallacy by which we consider a proposition to be true because it has not been proved false, or a proposition to be false because it has not been proved true.

it is the nurture that decides the behavior of a child.

explanation:

naturally, children are pure. it is an environment and the type of attention a child gets that determines their behavior.  

answer: the prince warns the 2 families that if they get into another fight they will be put to death