Richard nixon's "checkers" speech was a response to accusations that he misused campaign funds for non-political expenses. which paragraph in this excerpt from the speech uses the red herring fallacy? but i have never done that for this reason: i have found that there are so many deserving stenographers and secretaries in washington that needed the work that i just didn't feel it was right to put my wife on the pay roll. my wife's sitting over here. she's a wonderful stenographer. she used to teach stenography and she used to teach shorthand in high school. that was when i met her. and i can tell you folks that she's worked many hours at night and many hours on saturdays and sundays in my office, and she's done a fine job, and i am proud to say tonight that in the six years i've been in the house and the senate of the united states, pat nixon has never been on the government pay roll. what are other ways that these finances can be taken care of? some who are lawyers, and i happen to be a lawyer, continue to practice law, but i haven't been able to do that. i'm so far away from california that i've been so busy with my senatorial work that i have not engaged in any legal practice. and, also, as far as law practice is concerned, it seemed to me that the relationship between an attorney and the client was so personal that you couldn't possibly represent a man as an attorney and then have an unbiased view when he presented his case to you in the event that he had one before government. and so i felt that the best way to handle these necessary political expenses of getting my message to the american people and the speeches i made -- the speeches that i had printed for the most part concerned this one message of exposing this administration, the communism in it, the corruption in it -- the only way that i could do that was to accept the aid which people in my home state of california, who contributed to my campaign and who continued to make these contributions after i was elected, were glad to make.

answer: the essay describes the experience of the english narrator, possibly orwell himself, called upon to shoot an aggressive elephant while working as a police officer in burma.

explanation:

malvolio only loves olivia because he thinks if they get married to olivia he will have a noble title, people to serve him, and fine clothes to wear. also he thinks if they get married he will have many expensive things, and he thinks he will be able to order toby around. malvolio only wants to be noble and boss people around he dose not really love olivia. but viola love for duke orsino is real she really loves orsino.

i think he will fail because he tried to get her to love him and she said oh, you are sick of self-love, malvolio. there is no slander in an allowed fool. so i think she knows what malvolio is trying to do. she knows that he only wants to marry her because he wants to be noble and boss people around so that it why i think she said oh, you are sick of self-love, malvolio. there is no slander in an allowed fool because she new he was selfish.

"fire and ice" is one of robert frost's most popular poems. it was published in december 1920 in harper's magazine and in 1923 in his pulitzer prize−winning book new hampshire. it discusses the end of the world, likening the elemental force of fire with the emotion of desire, and ice with hate.

c. the power of desire is greater than the power of hate.

formal arguments

in written, formal arguments, the best way to build credibility with readers is to provide them with evidence. no matter what your argument might be and which side you agree with, citing strong evidence to back up your claim leaves the opposition with little to argue.

emotional appeal is often used in oral arguments. written arguments, however, rely on four main types of evidence. as you read further, you will see that some types are more credible than others and "hold more water" so to speak.

statistical evidence

the strongest type of evidence in formal writing is statistical evidence. this ranges from true, hard data presented as a percentage or number, to survey-type data. for example, statistical evidence could be:

4 out of 5 experts claim

85% of women in the united

7 members were present

statistical evidence can be proven as fact. you can actually go out and find hard information to prove your particular claim.

testimonial evidence

the use of celebrities as credibility evidence can be considered testimonial in nature. many people look up to celebrities as role models in their lives. good or bad, when a person chooses a life-path that takes them into public light, there will be many others out there who want to emulate the celebrity. these celebrity endorsements provide the second-strongest type of evidence found in formal arguments.

testimonial evidence can also be collected from experts and authorities in a given field. doctors, dentists, lawyers often provide expert testimonials. their authority is not often questions. they are expected to "know their stuff."

anecdotal evidence

when storytelling is involved as evidence, anecdotal evidence is being used. due to its less objective nature, anecdotal evidence is not extremely strong. when coupled with statistical or testimonial evidence, anecdotal evidence can be highly effective in determining credibility or proof.

storytelling, although based on fact, can include quite a bit of opinion, thus making it less objective. usually, eyewitnesses are used as providers of anecdotal evidence. they saw or experienced the phenomenon at hand are telling their version or side of the story.

analogical evidence

when information is scarce about something and little is known, analogical evidence is often used in a formal argument to increase credibility of the proof. if the phenomenon in question is new and little is known about it, analogical evidence that pulls in known factors about a similar phenomenon to show parallels can be an effective way to provide proof.

due to limited knowledge about the phenomenon, in this situation, analogical evidence can be regarded as the weakest type of evidence used in formal arguments. one can only imagine and hope that the comparison-phenomenon is close enough that the results can be applied to the new phenomenon.

in the

all that really matters in a formal argument is whether or not the writer has credible evidence to back up what they want to say or what they are thinking. so often, we hear people say, "prove it! " to one another.

one last little formal arguments not only provide credible evidence to support claims, don't forget that acknowledgment of the opposing point of view in an argument also strengthens the entire product.