1. read the following paragraph from "resistance to civil government" by henry david thoreau:
this american government, —what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? it has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. it is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. but it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed upon, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. it is excellent, we must all allow. yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. it does not keep the country free. it does not settle the west. it does not educate. the character inherent in the american people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. for government is an expedient, by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it.
analyze the rhetorical style of this paragraph. how does the style contribute to the essay's power? in particular, consider its parallelism and figurative language in formulating your response. be sure to include specific details from the text to support your answer. (10 points)

Hi,

By using question that doesn't need an answers, Thoreau appeals to all American people (who lawfully live in a country, state, etc.), lifting up/raising up the tone and mood of the text. These questions relate to problems that are universal for all Americans (and all people in general). Question that doesn't need an answers either don't have an answer, or, as in this case, they have an obvious one, so that it doesn't need confirming. However, obvious though it may be,this answer is still related only in your mind (but maybe not in real life) - and that's what Thoreau was trying to change. 
Thoreau argues that (system or country where leaders are chosen by votes) should be better than it is now. It shouldn't be about numbers of people who vote for or against something, but about the (basic, built-in, important qualities/scent) of things, such as human sense of right and wrong. Such as it is, (system or country where leaders are chosen by votes) has gone long way from serving the people (who lawfully live in a country, state, etc.) to becoming an end in itself. It has become (surviving with no outside help) and abandoned/irritated. It has become the state's tool, rather than the people (who lawfully live in a country, state, etc.)'. "Must the person (who lawfully lives in a country, state, etc.) ever for a moment, or in the least degree, quit his sense of right and wrong to the law-maker?" - The law-maker shouldn't be more important than the person (who lawfully lives in a country, state, etc.). The law shouldn't be more important than justice. "We should be men first, and subjects afterward" - people (who lawfully live in a country, state, etc.) should be perceived in their own right, and not according to their loyalty to the state. In other words, all of us are people, rather than just members of a nation, or people (who vote). 

Hoped I Helped

Give examples, people who actually harmed.