Then identify how source evidences statement, perhaps quote or refer closely to source. Sources 1, 2 and 3 all support the statement to an extent, source and 1 and 2 for similar reasons. Source 1 is from a contemporary historian. Polydore Vergil is usually quite favourable towards Henry VIII, and therefore his rather critical assessment of the instability of the north and thereby the Scottish threat of invasion is all the more accurate. Therefore the source suggests that Henry’s inability to enforce the ‘newly-imposed head tax’ contributed not only to a lack of funds for wars with France, but also his failure to combat the tax boycott ‘gave [James IV] hope of undertaking something’.
In addition, Brumfield’s low IQ scores, considering IQ tests margin of error, is enough to question his intellectual capacity as reasonable doubt and win his Atkins hearing. As far as the 5th Circuit claiming that the state court was not in violation of his rights because they initially did not provide him funds to make his case, is of no importance since the state court had acknowledged their mistake. After given the funds to show proper evidence Brumfield was indeed shown to be
England managing to successfully pursue a policy of peace making in the years 1514-21 and how Wolsey was very sly and flexible in his diplomacy and arguments which disagree with the statement, for example it could also be seen that Henry’s chief aim, the invasion of France, was unpopular with people at the time and that Henry’s foreign policy was too costly when compared with the few benefits it brought to England. Henry’s allies often let him down and were much more interested in their own aims and not so much of England’s. A point in support of the view that the successes in foreign policy outweighed the failures is that England had successfully delivered a policy of peace making in the years 1514-21. This is seen in source 4, in which M.D. Palmer writes about how Wolsey successfully brought about peace between England and France in 1514, and that he engineered the universal peace of London in 1518.
It highlights financial gain in terms of ‘profits’ for the King. Although source I does not directly reject the motives of a belief in corruption as it does not provide a royal viewpoint, it implies that the King and Cromwell were driven by greed and anger. Perhaps Source I also provides a more useful account as Aske would be expressing his perspective under the knowledge that he was soon to lose his life, although he was clearly going to accept this forceful view because of his position as the leader of the Pilgrimage of Grace and representative of the opposition to the dissolution of the monasteries and the
Reparations had been reorganised once again and the improved terms of the Young's plan meant that Weimer Republic's problem was feasible and it could overcome its pain of deficit without struggle. Even though the Young Plan was certainly more advantageous than the original Treaty of Versailles, Young Plan was still regarded as a failure by many Germans than success in itself. Many people, especially the German nationalists, opposed The Young Plan as they believed that accepting the Young Plan meant accepting defeat overall. It meant
Jan seemed to be downplaying the whole situation because she doesn’t understand why Ken was so concerned about what she had told Shannon due to the fact that they were not even together at the time. I would suggest to Jan that once the conversation has started, and it is in a negative tone, to remember to establish a good climate, communicators confirm each other by recognizing and acknowledging each other’s concerns and feelings (Wood, 2007, p. 235). I would also suggest to Jan to take responsibility for your thoughts, feelings, and issues, Jan was in the wrong for telling Shannon about Ken’s past and instead of Jan owning up to it she was cross-complaining. Cross-complaining occurs when one person’s complaint is met by a counter-complaint (Wood, 2007, p.
By persecuting his father is piety. But Socrates discards his definition because it is in fact not a definition but rather an example. It does not give reason on why things are pious. So, Euthyphro rebounds by claiming piety is what is pleasing to the gods. He says that “ The things and the men that are pleasing to the gods are pious, and the things and the men that are displeasing to the gods are impious.” Socrates approves of this definition because it is of a very generalization.
Farhad then asks if Daniel has a friend that replaces doors Daniel tells Farhad that he does not and that Farhad needs to call someone else that fixes doors. Farhad assumes that Daniel is trying to cheat him because even though Daniel replaced the lock but did not fix the door that he did not do his job. Because of the communication display of Farhad toward Daniel, Farhad did not effectively accomplish what he wanted. (Haggis, 2004) The matter could have been easily handled effectively if Daniel maybe could have used nonverbal communication by showing him what he did and explained that the lock was replaced and that it’s not the lock but, his door that needs to be fixed. “When you communicate with others, one way to minimize misunderstandings is to increase your awareness of the intentions of your messages and the possible interpretations of your words.
Orwell includes himself when he explains this analogy- he doesn’t go on to say anything to the effect of “and this is how you compare to that in your use of language”. Instead, he says “It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts” (Orwell 1). Without the use of pronouns, the criticisms might have been taken personally by anyone who read it and it would likely have been discredited, as people became defensive, and chances are it wouldn’t have gotten much circulation. In order to unite himself with the reader, Orwell concludes his essay with an acknowledgement of the fact that the very essay he is writing probably includes some of the mistakes he finds in the work of other writers, which contribute to the decline of the English language.
While Carr’s arguments lead to the viable point that technology is now so deeply riveted into the fabric of our lives that we have lost control over its influence on us, he is not the first to be concerned. According to Carr, Socrates thought very little of the advancement of writing due to the fact that it would force society to forfeit the use of their memory because of the abundance of written material that would then be available. He also believed that people would, without receiving knowledge from credible sources, rely alone on their own interpretation of information and in turn become ignorant. Carr sees Socrates’ way of thinking as “short-sighted,” even though his argument in relationship to the internet mirrors that of Socrates’. Google has “[served] to spread information, spur fresh ideas, and expand human knowledge” today in the same way that the development of writing expanded the mind of an individual in the first century (Carr 8).