Consider the following passage:The first and most manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain and evident to our senses that some things are in motion. Whatever is in motion is moved by another For 'motion' means the reduction of something from a state of potentiality into a state of actuality. But a thing can be reduced from a state of potentiality into a state of actuality only by something already in a state of actuality It is impossible for the same thing should be simultaneously in a state of actuality and potentiality from the same point of view, but only from different points of view Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another, and that by another again. This cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other movers--since subsequent movers only move insofar as they are put in motion by the first mover Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. The following question has 2 parts:Please formalize the argument presented in this passage. Please present your one best criticism of the argument presented in the passage

It is certain and evident to our senses that some things are in motion.  Whatever is in motion is moved by another, for a thing can be in motion only if it has a potentiality for that towards which it is being moved, while a thing moves insofar as it is actual. for motion means the reduction of something from a state of potentiality into a state of actuality. but a thing can be reduced from a state of potentiality into a state of actuality only by something already in a state of actuality. thus that which is actually hot such as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot and thereby moves and changes it.  it is impossible for the same thing should be simultaneously in a state of actuality and potentiality from the same point of view, but only from different points of view.  what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be only potentially hot...if that by which is put in motion is itself put in motion, then this also must be put in motion by another, and that by another again.  this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other movers-since subsequent movers only move insofar as they are put int motion by the first mover, just as the staff only moves because it is put in motion by the hand.  therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Explanation:

the 5th amendment is about the justice system

explanation:

there is no double jeopardy

due process

grand jury

and that you can’t incriminate yourself

soothing tone) but quickly, the tone changes from a light tone to a grim one. by introducing disturbing word choices that are illogical.make a list of some of levertov’s images of war from both of her poems. how do her wordsaffect you? do you agree with her position on war? write a short response (at least 100 words) and support your answer with personal experience or your studiespoets can change the tone in a poem, and levertov does when the she refers to "delicate man . .whose eyes/are flowers that perceive the stars”. the word choices here are different. theimages began to show feelings of hope/potential. but this mood is interrupted with the dark oppressive words "entrails of still-alive babies" and "carcass-gulleys". levertov continues to switch tones by "the deep intelligence living at peace would have"—one is left with a sense of hope. i can connect with her words that humans can do better things than fight in war. we only have one life so dying in a war would be for no reason. also, i am a christian and in the bible, it says "thou shall not kill", and i strongly believe in that.people respond differently to satire—some like it, others don't get it. in at least 150 words, describe what you think of goines's narrative essay. discuss whether you think his position is convincing.the satire kept people's attention, rather than just rambling. instead of being dead serious, he adds humor to enlighten it. i think he did a good job of proving his point, but convincing people to stray from their own beliefs is hard, and satire can be offensive to that person. overall i think that goines's narrative essay was good because narrative essay create deeper understanding. i also like that the narrative essay is in first-person. the essay was filled with diction and word choice to let you know that the essay is going to be witty yet satirical. his point was to write  

explanation: