Please read the following passage. What type of Persuasion is being used in the italicized section?
They were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet men; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forbearance; but that they knew its limits. They believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny. With them, nothing was “settled” that was not right. With them, justice, liberty and humanity were “final;” not slavery and oppression. You may well cherish the memory of such men. They were great in their day and generation. Their solid manhood stands out the more as we contrast it with these degenerate times. How circumspect, exact and proportionate were all their movements! How unlike the politicians of an hour! Their statesmanship looked beyond the passing moment, and stretched away in strength into the distant future. They seized upon eternal principles, and set a glorious example in their defense. Mark them!
Fully appreciating the hardship to be encountered, firmly believing in the right of their cause, honorably inviting the scrutiny of an on-looking world, reverently appealing to heaven to attest
their sincerity, soundly comprehending the solemn responsibility they were about to assume, wisely measuring the terrible odds against them, your fathers, the fathers of this republic, did, most deliberately, under the inspiration of a glorious patriotism, and with a sublime faith in the great principles of justice and freedom, lay deep the corner-stone of the national superstructure, which has risen and still rises in grandeur around you.
A.
Ethos
B.
Pathos
C.
Logos
D.
Rebuttal
A. Ethos
Please read the following passage. What type of Persuasion is being used in the italicized section?
But, your fathers, who had not adopted the fashionable idea of this day, of the infallibility of
government, and the absolute character of its acts, presumed to differ from the home government in respect to the wisdom and the justice of some of those burdens and restraints. They went so far in their excitement as to pronounce the measures of government unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive, and altogether such as ought not to be quietly submitted to. I scarcely need say, fellow citizens, that my opinion of those measures fully accords with that of your fathers. Such a declaration of agreement on my part would not be worth much to anybody. It would, certainly, prove nothing, as to what part I might have taken, had I lived during the great controversy of 1776.
To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy. Everybody can say it; the dastard, not less than the noble brave, can flippantly discount on the tyranny of England towards the American Colonies. It is fashionable to do so; but there was a time when to pronounce against England, and in favor of the cause of the colonies, tried men’s souls. They who did so were accounted in their day, plotters of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men. To side with the right, against the wrong, with the weak against the strong, and with the oppressed against the oppressor! here lies the merit, and the one which, of all others, seems unfashionable in our day. The cause of liberty may be stabbed by the men who glory in the deeds of your fathers. But, to proceed.
Feeling themselves harshly and unjustly treated by the home government, your fathers, like men of honesty, and men of spirit, earnestly sought redress. They petitioned and remonstrated; they did so in a decorous, respectful, and loyal manner. Their conduct was wholly unexceptionable. This, however, did not answer the purpose. They saw themselves treated with sovereign indifference, coldness and scorn. Yet they persevered. They were not the men to look back. As the sheet anchor takes a firmer hold, when the ship is tossed by the storm, so did the cause of your fathers grow stronger, as it breasted the chilling blasts of kingly displeasure. The greatest and best of British statesmen admitted its justice, and the loftiest eloquence of the British Senate came to its support. But, with that blindness which seems to be the unvarying characteristic of tyrants, since Pharaoh and his hosts were drowned in the Red Sea, the British Government persisted in the exactions complained of.
A.
Ethos
B.
Pathos
C.
Logos
D.
Rebuttal
C. Logos
More than ever these two endeavors are inseparable. I am absolutely convinced we cannot restore economic opportunity or solve our social problems unless we find a way to bring the American people together. To bring our people together we must openly and honestly deal with the issues that divide us. Today I want to discuss one of those issues, affirmative action.
Read the first sentence from paragraph 3 of the speech. What is the meaning of inseparable?
A.
critical
B.
shared
C.
connected
D.
equal
C. connected
Address on Affirmative Action (July 19, 1995)
by William Jefferson Clinton
Bill Clinton served as president from 1993 to 2001. In this speech, Clinton discusses affirmative action, a set of policies and programs designed to improve opportunities for minorities and women. Affirmative action is typically used in education and employment settings as a way to combat discrimination.
1
In recent weeks I have begun a conversation with the American people about our fate and our duty to prepare our Nation not only to meet the new century but to live and lead in a world transformed to a degree seldom seen in all of our history. Much of this change is good, but it is not all good, and all of us are affected by it. Therefore, we must reach beyond our fears and our divisions to a new time of great and common purpose.
2
Our challenge is twofold: first, to restore the American dream of opportunity and the American value of responsibility; and second, to bring our country together amid all our diversity into a stronger community, so that we can find common ground and move forward as one.
3
More than ever these two endeavors are inseparable. I am absolutely convinced we cannot restore economic opportunity or solve our social problems unless we find a way to bring the American people together. To bring our people together we must openly and honestly deal with the issues that divide us. Today I want to discuss one of those issues, affirmative action.
4
It is, in a way, ironic that this issue should be divisive today, because affirmative action began 25 years ago by a Republican President with bipartisan support. It began simply as a means to an end of enduring national purpose, equal opportunity for all Americans.
5
So let us today trace the roots of affirmative action in our never-ending search for equal opportunity. Let us determine what it is and what it isn’t. Let us see where it’s worked and where it hasn’t, and ask ourselves what we need to do now. Along the way, let us remember always that finding common ground as we move toward the 21st century depends fundamentally on our shared commitment to equal opportunity for all Americans. It is a moral imperative, a constitutional mandate, and a legal necessity. . . .
6
The purpose of affirmative action is to give our Nation a way to finally address the systemic exclusion of individuals of talent on the basis of their gender or race from opportunities to develop, perform, achieve, and contribute. Affirmative action is an effort to develop a systematic approach to open the doors of education, employment, and business development opportunities to qualified individuals who happen to be members of groups that have experienced longstanding and persistent discrimination.
7
It is a policy that grew out of many years of trying to navigate between two unacceptable pasts. One was to say simply that we declared discrimination illegal and that’s enough. We saw that that way still relegated blacks with college degrees to jobs as railroad porters and kept women with degrees under a glass ceiling with a lower paycheck.
8
The other path was simply to try to impose change by leveling draconian penalties on employers who didn’t meet certain imposed, ultimately arbitrary, and sometimes unachievable quotas. That, too, was rejected out of a sense of fairness.
9
So a middle ground was developed that would change an inequitable status quo gradually but firmly, by building the pool of qualified applicants for college, for contracts, for jobs, and giving more people the chance to learn, work, and earn. When affirmative action is done right, it is flexible, it is fair, and it works. . . .
10
Let me be clear about what affirmative action must not mean and what I won’t allow it to be. It does not mean and I don’t favor the unjustified preference of the unqualified over the qualified of any race or gender. It doesn’t mean and I don’t favor numerical quotas. It doesn’t mean and I don’t favor rejection or selection of any employee or student solely on the basis of race or gender without regard to merit. . . .
11
My fellow Americans, affirmative action has to be made consistent with our highest ideals of personal responsibility and merit and our urgent need to find common ground and to prepare all Americans to compete in the global economy of the next century.
12
Today I am directing all our agencies to comply with the Supreme Court’s Adarand decision,1 and also to apply the four standards of fairness to all our affirmative action programs that I have already articulated: No quotas in theory or practice; no illegal discrimination of any kind, including reverse discrimination; no preference for people who are not qualified for any job or other opportunity; and as soon as a program has succeeded, it must be retired. Any program that doesn’t meet these four principles must be eliminated or reformed to meet them.
13
But let me be clear: Affirmative action has been good for America.
14
Affirmative action has not always been perfect, and affirmative action should not go on forever. It should be changed now to take care of those things that are wrong, and it should be retired when its job is done. I am resolved that that day will come. But the evidence suggests, indeed, screams that that day has not come.
15
The job of ending discrimination in this country is not over. That should not be surprising. We had slavery for centuries before the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. We waited another 100 years for the civil rights legislation. Women have had the vote less than 100 years. We have always had difficulty with these things, as most societies do. But we are making more progress than many people.
16
Based on the evidence, the job is not done. So here is what I think we should do. We should reaffirm the principle of affirmative action and fix the practices. We should have a simple slogan: Mend it, but don’t end it.
1 In Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal programs using racial basis in decision making must serve a compelling government interest.
"Address on Affirmative Action" by William Jefferson Clinton. In the public domain.
Which excerpt from the text best supports the idea that affirmative action is a policy the nation should continue to follow?
A.
Affirmative action began 25 years ago by a Republican President with bipartisan support.
B.
It is a policy that grew out of many years of trying to navigate between two unacceptable pasts.
C.
But let me be clear: Affirmative action has been good for America.
D.
The job of ending discrimination in this country is not over.
D. "The job of ending discrimination in this country is not over."
Bill Clinton served as president from 1993 to 2001. In this speech, Clinton discusses affirmative action, a set of policies and programs designed to improve opportunities for minorities and women. Affirmative action is typically used in education and employment settings as a way to combat discrimination.
1
In recent weeks I have begun a conversation with the American people about our fate and our duty to prepare our Nation not only to meet the new century but to live and lead in a world transformed to a degree seldom seen in all of our history. Much of this change is good, but it is not all good, and all of us are affected by it. Therefore, we must reach beyond our fears and our divisions to a new time of great and common purpose.
2
Our challenge is twofold: first, to restore the American dream of opportunity and the American value of responsibility; and second, to bring our country together amid all our diversity into a stronger community, so that we can find common ground and move forward as one.
3
More than ever these two endeavors are inseparable. I am absolutely convinced we cannot restore economic opportunity or solve our social problems unless we find a way to bring the American people together. To bring our people together we must openly and honestly deal with the issues that divide us. Today I want to discuss one of those issues, affirmative action.
4
It is, in a way, ironic that this issue should be divisive today, because affirmative action began 25 years ago by a Republican President with bipartisan support. It began simply as a means to an end of enduring national purpose, equal opportunity for all Americans.
5
So let us today trace the roots of affirmative action in our never-ending search for equal opportunity. Let us determine what it is and what it isn’t. Let us see where it’s worked and where it hasn’t, and ask ourselves what we need to do now. Along the way, let us remember always that finding common ground as we move toward the 21st century depends fundamentally on our shared commitment to equal opportunity for all Americans. It is a moral imperative, a constitutional mandate, and a legal necessity. . . .
6
The purpose of affirmative action is to give our Nation a way to finally address the systemic exclusion of individuals of talent on the basis of their gender or race from opportunities to develop, perform, achieve, and contribute. Affirmative action is an effort to develop a systematic approach to open the doors of education, employment, and business development opportunities to qualified individuals who happen to be members of groups that have experienced longstanding and persistent discrimination.
7
It is a policy that grew out of many years of trying to navigate between two unacceptable pasts. One was to say simply that we declared discrimination illegal and that’s enough. We saw that that way still relegated blacks with college degrees to jobs as railroad porters and kept women with degrees under a glass ceiling with a lower paycheck.
8
The other path was simply to try to impose change by leveling draconian penalties on employers who didn’t meet certain imposed, ultimately arbitrary, and sometimes unachievable quotas. That, too, was rejected out of a sense of fairness.
9
So a middle ground was developed that would change an inequitable status quo gradually but firmly, by building the pool of qualified applicants for college, for contracts, for jobs, and giving more people the chance to learn, work, and earn. When affirmative action is done right, it is flexible, it is fair, and it works. . . .
10
Let me be clear about what affirmative action must not mean and what I won’t allow it to be. It does not mean and I don’t favor the unjustified preference of the unqualified over the qualified of any race or gender. It doesn’t mean and I don’t favor numerical quotas. It doesn’t mean and I don’t favor rejection or selection of any employee or student solely on the basis of race or gender without regard to merit. . . .
11
My fellow Americans, affirmative action has to be made consistent with our highest ideals of personal responsibility and merit and our urgent need to find common ground and to prepare all Americans to compete in the global economy of the next century.
12
Today I am directing all our agencies to comply with the Supreme Court’s Adarand decision,1 and also to apply the four standards of fairness to all our affirmative action programs that I have already articulated: No quotas in theory or practice; no illegal discrimination of any kind, including reverse discrimination; no preference for people who are not qualified for any job or other opportunity; and as soon as a program has succeeded, it must be retired. Any program that doesn’t meet these four principles must be eliminated or reformed to meet them.
13
But let me be clear: Affirmative action has been good for America.
14
Affirmative action has not always been perfect, and affirmative action should not go on forever. It should be changed now to take care of those things that are wrong, and it should be retired when its job is done. I am resolved that that day will come. But the evidence suggests, indeed, screams that that day has not come.
15
The job of ending discrimination in this country is not over. That should not be surprising. We had slavery for centuries before the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. We waited another 100 years for the civil rights legislation. Women have had the vote less than 100 years. We have always had difficulty with these things, as most societies do. But we are making more progress than many people.
16
Based on the evidence, the job is not done. So here is what I think we should do. We should reaffirm the principle of affirmative action and fix the practices. We should have a simple slogan: Mend it, but don’t end it.
1 In Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal programs using racial basis in decision making must serve a compelling government interest.
"Address on Affirmative Action" by William Jefferson Clinton. In the public domain.
How does paragraph 4 support Clinton's argument?
A.
It shows Clinton’s belief that more affirmative action laws are necessary.
B.
It explains the positive effects of affirmative action over the last 25 years.
C.
It suggests that affirmative action has been successful but must evolve.
D.
It shows that affirmative action has had support from both political parties.
D. It shows that affirmative action has had support from both political parties.
Bill Clinton served as president from 1993 to 2001. In this speech, Clinton discusses affirmative action, a set of policies and programs designed to improve opportunities for minorities and women. Affirmative action is typically used in education and employment settings as a way to combat discrimination.
1
In recent weeks I have begun a conversation with the American people about our fate and our duty to prepare our Nation not only to meet the new century but to live and lead in a world transformed to a degree seldom seen in all of our history. Much of this change is good, but it is not all good, and all of us are affected by it. Therefore, we must reach beyond our fears and our divisions to a new time of great and common purpose.
2
Our challenge is twofold: first, to restore the American dream of opportunity and the American value of responsibility; and second, to bring our country together amid all our diversity into a stronger community, so that we can find common ground and move forward as one.
3
More than ever these two endeavors are inseparable. I am absolutely convinced we cannot restore economic opportunity or solve our social problems unless we find a way to bring the American people together. To bring our people together we must openly and honestly deal with the issues that divide us. Today I want to discuss one of those issues, affirmative action.
4
It is, in a way, ironic that this issue should be divisive today, because affirmative action began 25 years ago by a Republican President with bipartisan support. It began simply as a means to an end of enduring national purpose, equal opportunity for all Americans.
5
So let us today trace the roots of affirmative action in our never-ending search for equal opportunity. Let us determine what it is and what it isn’t. Let us see where it’s worked and where it hasn’t, and ask ourselves what we need to do now. Along the way, let us remember always that finding common ground as we move toward the 21st century depends fundamentally on our shared commitment to equal opportunity for all Americans. It is a moral imperative, a constitutional mandate, and a legal necessity. . . .
6
The purpose of affirmative action is to give our Nation a way to finally address the systemic exclusion of individuals of talent on the basis of their gender or race from opportunities to develop, perform, achieve, and contribute. Affirmative action is an effort to develop a systematic approach to open the doors of education, employment, and business development opportunities to qualified individuals who happen to be members of groups that have experienced longstanding and persistent discrimination.
7
It is a policy that grew out of many years of trying to navigate between two unacceptable pasts. One was to say simply that we declared discrimination illegal and that’s enough. We saw that that way still relegated blacks with college degrees to jobs as railroad porters and kept women with degrees under a glass ceiling with a lower paycheck.
8
The other path was simply to try to impose change by leveling draconian penalties on employers who didn’t meet certain imposed, ultimately arbitrary, and sometimes unachievable quotas. That, too, was rejected out of a sense of fairness.
9
So a middle ground was developed that would change an inequitable status quo gradually but firmly, by building the pool of qualified applicants for college, for contracts, for jobs, and giving more people the chance to learn, work, and earn. When affirmative action is done right, it is flexible, it is fair, and it works. . . .
10
Let me be clear about what affirmative action must not mean and what I won’t allow it to be. It does not mean and I don’t favor the unjustified preference of the unqualified over the qualified of any race or gender. It doesn’t mean and I don’t favor numerical quotas. It doesn’t mean and I don’t favor rejection or selection of any employee or student solely on the basis of race or gender without regard to merit. . . .
11
My fellow Americans, affirmative action has to be made consistent with our highest ideals of personal responsibility and merit and our urgent need to find common ground and to prepare all Americans to compete in the global economy of the next century.
12
Today I am directing all our agencies to comply with the Supreme Court’s Adarand decision,1 and also to apply the four standards of fairness to all our affirmative action programs that I have already articulated: No quotas in theory or practice; no illegal discrimination of any kind, including reverse discrimination; no preference for people who are not qualified for any job or other opportunity; and as soon as a program has succeeded, it must be retired. Any program that doesn’t meet these four principles must be eliminated or reformed to meet them.
13
But let me be clear: Affirmative action has been good for America.
14
Affirmative action has not always been perfect, and affirmative action should not go on forever. It should be changed now to take care of those things that are wrong, and it should be retired when its job is done. I am resolved that that day will come. But the evidence suggests, indeed, screams that that day has not come.
15
The job of ending discrimination in this country is not over. That should not be surprising. We had slavery for centuries before the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. We waited another 100 years for the civil rights legislation. Women have had the vote less than 100 years. We have always had difficulty with these things, as most societies do. But we are making more progress than many people.
16
Based on the evidence, the job is not done. So here is what I think we should do. We should reaffirm the principle of affirmative action and fix the practices. We should have a simple slogan: Mend it, but don’t end it.
1 In Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal programs using racial basis in decision making must serve a compelling government interest.
"Address on Affirmative Action" by William Jefferson Clinton. In the public domain.
Which provides the most accurate summary of the speech?
A.
Clinton worries about the future of affirmative action. He reminds listeners that preference has long been given to men and now needs to be given to others.
B.
Clinton explains the need for affirmative action. He calls for a search of all areas in which it is not implemented and urges that these programs be eliminated.
C.
Clinton explains why affirmative action is good. He urges lawmakers to submit ideas to Congress for new programs such as this.
D.
Clinton defines affirmative action. He explains the necessity for it and calls for the reform of the current program because it is fundamentally sound.