The atomic bomb was produced through: oa. the yalta conference. b. operation overlord. c. the manhattan project. d. operation torch.

1. read the following excerpt from franklin d. roosevelt's "fireside chat 19":

on the other side of the picture, we must learn also to know that guerilla warfare against the germans in, let us say serbia or norway, us; that a successful russian offensive against the germans us; and that british successes on land or sea in any part of the world strengthen our hands.

remember always that germany and italy, regardless of any formal declaration of war, consider themselves at war with the united states at this moment just as much as they consider themselves at war with britain or russia. and germany puts all the other republics of the americas into the same category of enemies. the people of our sister republics of this hemisphere can be honored by that fact.  

the true goal we seek is far above and beyond the ugly field of battle. when we resort to force, as now we must, we are determined that this force shall be directed toward ultimate good as well as against immediate evil. we americans are not destroyers — we are builders.

analyze the effectiveness of this excerpt. how does it function within the speech as a whole? how does the structure of the excerpt to convey the speech's purpose and key points? support your argument with evidence from the speech. (10 points)

i go to the store and buy some cheese,suddenly there was akward silence.   out of no where comes a ninja, and he takes an apple, and chokes the cashier, until he passes out.   the disapeared in a puff of smoke.   the cashier went to the doctor, and everything was fine again.   they all lived happily ever after without anymore ninjas.

the end

go to buy cheese= exposition

akaward silence= rising action

ninja chokes the cashier= climax

cashier goes to the doctor= falling action

they live happily ever after= resolution

the correct answer is "dissent"

explanation:

because dissent is when one or more judges express disagreement with the majority in court, in specific legal systems.   an   argument in opposition is presented to the court, with a different interpretation, or application.