But if a thief break into my house, burn and destroy my property, and kill or threaten 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 is 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 . . in this passage from the crisis, thomas paine was primarily employing which persuasive technique?

The correct answer is B) an appeal to ethics .

Thomas Paine is employing the appeal to ethics persuasive technique.

In the excerpt, Thomas Paine is using an appeal to ethics persuasive technique when he refers to the way justice should act in crimes committed by people. He refers to the moral dilemma of what to do in some case or the other ones when he says “…neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other.”  

The other options of the question were a) logic, c) authority, d) emotion.  

several states had passed similar laws, but they were limited to intrastate businesses. the sherman antitrust act was based on the constitutional power of congress to regulate interstate commerce.

you answered my friends question just to get the coins you didn't even give a valid response.

google it and it will pop up