Which sentence in the excerpt supports the claim that the American colonies could thrive independently from Britain? by Thomas Paine (excerpt)

I have heard it asserted by some, that as America hath flourished under her former connection with Great Britain that the same connection is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert that because a child has thrived upon milk that it is never to have meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power had any thing to do with her. The commerce, by which she hath enriched herself, are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.

C) But even this is admitting more than is true, for I answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power had any thing to do with her.

In Option C, Paine is stating that America would actually have been better off if it was not controlled by Britain. He says that being under British control actually hindered America's progress and kept it from flourishing even more. Options A and B both give arguments for America needing Britain in order to thrive. In Option A it states that a connection with Britain is important for America to maintain its happiness. In Option B it compares America to a child. It states that if a child can survive on milk alone then it should never have meat. Therefore America should only need Britain. We can tell Paine sees this as preposterous, but this initial idea does not support the claim. Option D shows how America will always have commerce but Britain is only concerned with eating. This alone is not enough for strong evidence.

Read more on -

Explanation:

many were disgusted, nauseated and shook their heads with disapproval upon finding out about the recycling of water process. however, they do not seem to understand that this process actually saves water.

although individuals may argue that it is unhealthy, and or unsafe to drink water that is "from toilet to tap" , the water is 100% safe to drink and involves forcing the water across a membrane, which "removes   any impurities, including viruses, pharmaceuticals and dissolved minerals" , according to paul rozin, a psychology professor who studies revulsion.

i agree that that the thought of drinking water that once ran through someones kitchen sink isn't quite appealing, but recycled wastewater is safe to drink. it also saves water. "the city produces nine million gallons a day" claims russell schreiber, the city’s director of public works.

recycled waste water has absolutely no health concerns whatsoever. when wastewater goes into a system, it's absorbed back into the ground. thus, it goes into a sewer system, then goes through a treatment process that removes contaminants before being released. nonetheless, there is no problem in drinking water that has been recycled.

"in drought-ed california, there are six state agencies that use wastewater that comes from an intellectual property source," according to the university of california, riverside. studies show that this water is completely safe to drink, however, it still doesn't mean people are going to happily pour it in a water glass.

researchers hope it "may make consumers more amenable to drinking recycled wastewater," extraordinarily, women who have a higher "disgust reaction" and make most consumer purchasing decisions.

entrepreneur give a lot of money to people so the answer is a