Third Condition Criticism for Past Mistakes Directions: Read each of the person’s mistakes below and criticize him/her using a third conditional sentence. ex. Don lost his job because he was late for work three times. If you hadn’t been late for work so often, you wouldn’t have lost your job. 1. Bobby had to go to the dentist to get three fillings because he ate so much candy. 2. Andrea didn’t buy travel insurance for her trip. She got sick and had to cancel. She didn’t get back her $3000 dollars. 3. John hurt his back because he moved all the furniture himself. 4. Michelle didn’t pay attention in class, so she didn’t know about the test.

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)

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.

i wonder if it is possible to place reagans testimony and paragragh 18, so we can compare and contract the ideas in the text.