Commissioner Lin’s Letter to Queen Victoria please answers these a bunch of pts here!!! 1. Who is Lin referring to when he says the “barbarians”?
a. An ancient tribe
b. Chinese peasants
c. Americans
d. Europeans
2. According to Lin, what punishment should an opium dealer receive?
a. 20 years in prison
b. The death penalty
c. Life in prison
d. Exile from China
3. According to Lin, how does Queen Victoria feel about China?
a. She likes their culture
b. She hates China
c. She looks down on China
d. She ignores China.
4. According to Lin, how does the Chinese emperor feel about the opium trade?
a. He is ignoring it.
b. He is profiting from it.
c. He is enraged by it.
d. He is annoyed by it.
5. To what does Lin appeal to in asking for the Europeans to stop the opium trade?
a. Their financial gain by stopping.
b. Their moral conscience.
c. The rule of law.
d. The American system of trade.
6. What type of writing is this letter?
a. Persuasive
b. Cause & effect
c. Informal
d. Research
7. In what way is the English opium trade hypocritical?
a. It is profiting only the British
b. It is hurting the Chinese
c. Opium is forbidden in England
d. Most of the opium was grown in India.
Short Answer Questions
8. Why did Commissioner Lin write this letter to Queen Victoria?
9. Do you find Commissioner Lin’s argument effective? Explain why/why not.
10. Imagine you wanted a drug dealer to stop selling drugs in your neighborhood. What would you do or say?

i think it might be d but god dang u wrote all of this

Explanation:

1.chinese peasants, B

2. death penalty, B

3. she looks down on china, C

4. He is enraged by it, C ( I think, not sure tho)

5. B, Their moral conscience I think

6.I think B or C

7. uhhh idk

Short answers:

8. dont know

9.uhh personally idk

10. I would personally call the police lol, jk, I guess I would get them help, idk

Explanation:

citizens united v. federal election commission, case in which the u.s. supreme court on january 21, 2010, ruled (5–4) that laws that prevented corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for independent “electioneering communications” (political advertising) violated the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. in so doing the court invalidated section 203 of the federal bipartisan campaign reform act of 2002 (bcra)—also known as the mccain-feingold act for its sponsors, sen. john mccain and sen. russ feingold—as well as section 441(b) of the federal election campaign act of 1971 (feca), which the bcra had amended. the court also overturned in whole or in part two previous supreme court rulings: austin v. michigan chamber of commerce (1990) and mcconnell v. federal election commission (2003).

immediately perceived as historically important, the decision generated intense controversy outside the court. some hailed it as a resounding victory for freedom of speech, while others criticized it as an overreaching attempt to rewrite campaign finance law. among the critics was pres. barack obama, who remarked in his state of the union address in the house of representatives one week later that the decision would “open the floodgates for special interests…to spend without limit in our elections.” his criticism provoked one of the supreme court justices in attendance, samuel a. alito, to break decorum by mouthing the words “not true.”

explanation:

maybe #3? try that i think its correct