Mike Huckabee may react to "Brutus' " articulations on normal rights by broadcasting that common rights are not rights at all because of the way that they originated from man and not from God. Huckabee would then continue to express that the main rights that humanity has are simply the ones that God made and that these rights you don't inalienable yet rather you need to gain your rights as a man. "Brutus" expresses that the common rights that the general population of America has ought not to be stripped away on the grounds that these rights we have are fundamental and to take them away are pointless however Huckabee does not see it that way.

Fred: (waves to sarah) hi, i just moved here. my name is fred. sarah: hi fred. where are you from? fred: florida. the weather here in michigan sure is cold. sarah: i know what you mean, i moved here from san diego two years ago. wait until january. fred: i can just imagine. hey do you mind if i sit with you for a little while? sarah: no, take a seat. i’d love the company during lunch. fred: it’s been hard to meet anyone since i started school last week. sarah: no worries. i know exactly how you feel. i moved at the end of the school year and didn’t get to know anyone. then i spent the summer alone. fred: aw, bummer. it sure is tough to start a new school. sarah: yeah, but when school started again, i met some cool people. fred: i am really shy about meeting new people. sarah: well, i can introduce my friends to you. (bell rings) fred: that would be great! guess lunch is over. it’s been great talking to you. sarah: you too. meet me here for lunch tomorrow and i’ll introduce my friends. fred: great. bye. sarah: later. the conversation between fred and sarah is an example of impersonal communication. select the best answer from the choices provided t f

Which two shifts occur at the end of franz kafkas the metamorphosis

Which of these best explains why the argument in this passage is weak? (5 points) the argument doesn't take into account opposing points of view. the argument relies on attacking a weak version of the opposition. the claim is not valid. the argument relies on claims that are not backed up by facts.