Read this passage from Act 3, Part 3, of The Crucible. DANFORTH: In an ordinary crime, how does one defend the accused? One calls up witnesses to prove his innocence. But witchcraft is ipso facto, on its face and by its nature, an invisible crime, is it not? Therefore, who may possibly be witness to it? The witch and the victim. None other. Now we cannot hope the witch will accuse herself; granted? Therefore, we must rely upon her victims—and they do testify, the children certainly do testify. As for the witches, none will deny that we are most eager for all their confessions. Therefore, what is left for a lawyer to bring out? I think I have made my point. Have I not? Which technique does the author use to convey an implicit meaning in this passage? The Crucible, Act 3, Part 3 sarcasm; Danforth is overly simplifying his explanation to mock the people in court satire; Danforth’s description of witchcraft as an “invisible crime” criticizes similar accusations of communist beliefs in the 1950s humor; Danforth rambles on in a way that is intentionally boring to the point of comedy irony; Danforth declares that the witnesses do not need lawyers, but he himself is a lawyer