Read the following excerpt from Martin Luther's 95 Theses.
21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error,
who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed
from every penalty, and saved.
- The 95 Theses,
Martin Luther
Which statement best explains Luther's argument?
O Luther argues that the only way to save someone's
soul is with an indulgence.
O Luther argues that those who sell indulgences do
not realize that they are wrong.
O Luther argues that those who say that indulgences
save people from punishment are wrong.
Luther argues that an indulgence only saves
someone from punishment if it was signed by the
pope.

the french revolution main idea was to give power to the people. the revolution was influenced by the enlightenment ideas, reasoning and skepticism pushed people to revolt against standards and norms in french society.

the problem was that the revolution caused political turmoil, and napoleon saw this as an opportunity and launched a coup d’état in november 1799. he became the first consul of france and later named french emperor.

some people see napoleon as a hero of the revolution and others see him as a traitor.

people see him as a traitor because he noticed the political turmoil and used this moment to rise to power. others see him as a hero of the revolution because he had some political and military achievements - in which he was committed to promoting the achievements of the french revolution - he had extensive public constructions, made a civil reform.

in a bigger picture, napoleon had some huge achievements in france which made him very important, but the fact that he seized power to himself makes him an undeniable traitor to the revolution since the main idea of it was to remove people from power and give power to the people.

yes.

explanation:

because it let the japanese know who had the upper hand in the war.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is

answer; i believe the correct answer is benjamin harrison;