1. Read this excerpt from a political speech. Then complete the chart by identifying some of the most important characteristics of the speech. (8 points)
The greatest problem facing the United States today is the threat of terrorism. As
members of Congress, we must do everything possible to ensure the safety of the
citizens we represent. That is why I strongly urge my fellow senators to support
this new antiterrorism bill. It will increase funding for vital security programs and
allow law enforcement to more easily access the phone and Internet records of
suspected terrorists. The bill will also make
more difficult for immigrants to enter
this country if they're from areas with significant terrorist activity. This will help us
stop terrorists before they have the chance to attack. Some organizations claiming
to support civil liberties and immigrants' rights have criticized me for sponsoring
this bill, but nobody should listen to anything they say. They apparently support
terrorists having free access to our country! If you side with Americans and not
terrorists, you will vote for my bill.

In the current national security environment, there is little question that

terrorism is among the gravest of threats. Massive resources

throughout the government and private sectors have been allocated and

re-allocated to the task of preventing terrorism. These efforts, however,

often lack a conceptual - let alone empirically-based – foundation for

understanding terrorists and their acts of violence. This void creates a

serious challenge at many levels, from policy-level decisions about how

a state should respond to terrorism, to individual-level decisions about

whether a given person of interest, who espouses extremist ideas, truly

poses a serious threat to U.S. personnel, assets, and interests.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze and synthesize what has been

reported from the scientific and professional literature about the

“psychology of terrorism.” This focus is not intended to suggest that the

scientific discipline of psychology provides the only, or even necessarily

the best, analytic framework for understanding terrorism. Like all

approaches to understanding or explaining human behavior, a

psychological approach has advantages and limitations. Nevertheless,

as psychology is regarded as “the science of human behavior,” it seems

a reasonable, and potentially productive, line of inquiry.

Although the basic question of how best to define terrorism has itself

been a vexing problem, for purposes of this analysis, we are concerned

generally with acts of violence (as opposed to threats or more general

coercion) intentionally perpetrated on civilian non-combatants with the

goal of furthering some ideological, religious or political objective. Our

focus on psychological dimensions, de-emphasizes analysis of

sociologically-based explanations (sometimes referred to as “root

causes”) or macro-level economic and political theories. Moreover, our

focus on terrorist acts de-emphasizes analysis of the psychological

effects, consequences or amelioration of terrorism.

In many ways, our basic aim is rather modest. We do not anticipate

identifying or discovering THE explanation for all terrorism

Step-by-step explanation:

fahrenheit

step-by-step explanation:

fahrenheit is more precise than celsius. the ambient temperature on most of the inhabited world ranges from -20 degrees fahrenheit to 110 degrees fahrenheit—a 130-degree range. on the celsius scale, that range is from -28.8 degrees to 43.3 degrees—a 72.1-degree range. this means that you can get a more exact measurement of the air temperature using fahrenheit because it uses almost twice the scale.

how am i supposed to answer

step-by-step explanation: