Can anyone help me out with thesee three questions?

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

shakespeare was famous for writing in iambic pentameter, which is a specific way of rhyming sonnet lines in ten syllables. there are also forms of unrhymed iambic pentameter, as in macbeth, with the noble characters.

emerson essentially believes that traveling is overrated. he supports this perspective through an initial focus on "the idea" of places like italy, england, and egypt, and the fascination of "educated americans" with them. he argues that those places only took on the grand, majestic ideas that they represent because "they who made england, italy, or greece venerable in the imagination did so by sticking fast where they were, like an axis of the earth." yes, those places are grand, but only because they so clearly represent the places that they are. the art and culture of italy, england, and egypt is authentic, and therefore significant.

plz mark brainliest