immigrants are introducing filth into the cities and taking american jobs
Taoism
pure food and drug act
Lyndon Johnson
"Reduce the power of corrupt party leaders.
free trade agreements]
No, there is no logical argument that is more supported or logically sound than an atheist's. If there was, it likely would be well known.
Which of these would a socially conservative politician MOST LIKELY support?
Nativist wanted to stop all Immigration to the US from Asia. They believed the Asians would take all of the jobs.
Taking an opponent's argument to its illogical conclusion, also known as reductio ad absurdum, involves extending their argument to an extreme or absurd scenario to highlight its flaws or logical inconsistencies. This technique aims to demonstrate that following the opponent's argument leads to unreasonable or nonsensical outcomes.
Values and concerns shared between you and your opposition are most likely to be found in the introduction or conclusion of an argument, where overarching principles or common ground are often addressed. This is where both sides may express their shared goals, beliefs, or desired outcomes, even if they differ on how to achieve them.
An author would likely use evidence from a variety of sources, such as scholarly articles, books, research studies, and expert opinions, to support a synthesis claim. By incorporating multiple perspectives and data points, the author can provide a comprehensive and well-rounded argument for their claim.
A nativist would define a "real" American as a native-born, white citizen from America.
Take jobs away from Americans
it can be less threatening and more personal for the reader.
shorten trade routes
A 17th century European king would most likely support the divine right theory.
it would help them fit in with white society