Which two statements correctly identify the effect that a switch in narration from third-person omniscient to third-person limited has on a story?
the switch in narration increases the proximity of the narrator to the main character.
the true details about past and future events are more easily shown to the reader.
the reader can perceive information only through the filter of a single character.
the inner thoughts of all the characters are revealed to the reader by the narrator.

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

hot and dry

i need 20 things so this was just randomly added. hot and dry is the answer