Ahistorian is making a historical argument about the french revolution. he notes that, following the revolution, a rash of violence swept over france. he points to the execution of the french royalty and the european wars the revolutionaries launched following their victory to support this point. in his opinion, it is morally wrong for any political movement to use violence to achieve its goals. based on these points, he argues that the french revolution produced far more negative outcomes than positive ones.
which of the following parts of the historian's argument is his thesis?
a.
"he notes that, following the revolution, a rash of violence swept over france."
b.
"he points to the execution of the french royalty and the european wars the revolutionaries launched following their victory to support this point."
c.
"based on these points, he argues that the french revolution produced far more negative outcomes than positive ones."
d.
"in his opinion, it is morally wrong for any political movement to use violence to achieve its goals."

The correct answer is C. One must be able to distinguish a thesis from an opinion. D. ("it is morally wrong for any political movement to use violence to achieve its goals") is a subjective point of view that guides his argument, but in and of itself cannot be proved. A. and B. are facts which support his thesis: the rash of violence that swept over France and the French Revolutionary Wars are historical facts not subject to debate (though their evaluation is, of course, subject to debate). His thesis (that is, the argument he is making based on facts) is C. "the French Revolution produced far more negative outcomes than positive ones." Though the thesis is informed by his opinion (D.), a thesis can be proved or at least strongly supported by evidence, while an opinion is generally seen as a matter of belief.

question: write a report analyzing through articles of confederation.

answer: the articles of confederation the united states constitution was written when the people feared strong government the new nation needed some kind of organization to hold states together to them fend off future attacks and make a stronger support system through the states and people the states bonded through a friendship that best served as a defense against a invasion and states were not allowed to use taxes as a way to discourage treaties, and states were extremely limited in their dealings with foreign nations the strengths were that the congress has the highest power in the nation because of   fear of monarchy congress had the sole power to declare war and assign treaties disputes between states and territorial issues were to be brought to congress and weaknesses were the lack of power given to congress the articles gave congress the power to pass laws but no power to enforce those laws if a state did not support a federal law that state could simply ignore it congress had no power to levy taxes or regulate trade.

explanation: so like every argument they have strengths and weaknesses but in this case there were more weaknesses but they managed o get through it and make an agreement

question answered by

(jacemorris04)