Help me make this sound more advanced. Will give brainliest to the best one :) I believe it is best if Charlie advocates for reducing speeds when there are whales. As said, lowering speeds would make it easier for boats to avoid whales and hopefully make strikes less harmful if they do occur. Given that whales don’t always stay in the same place, it does not matter if we expand our shipping lanes. Because at any time, the same thing could occur.

Due to the facts that lowering speeds would make it easier for the boats to avoid whales, I think it would be best for Charlie to advocate the reduction of speed near whales. This could lower the risks of strikes or collisions and if a strike does occur it can lower that level of danger. This could be expanded and shipping lanes could be expanded due to whales not having only one habitat and their movement during migration.

read this passage from the crisis. what rationale is paine using for going to war with great britain? my own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. not all the treasures of the world, so far as i believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for i think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am i to suffer it? what signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? if we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other.

it is waged war against an army of countrymen

it would lead to independence from britain

it would be an offensive war

it would be a defensive war