I have too long digressed, and therefore shall return to my subject. I think the advantages by the proposal which I have made are obvious and many, as well as of the highest importance. . . . Secondly, The poorer tenants will have something valuable of their own, which by law may be made liable to distress, and help to pay their landlord's rent, their corn and cattle being already seized, and money a thing unknown. Thirdly, Whereas the maintenance of an hundred thousand children, from two years old, and upward, cannot be computed at less than ten shillings a piece per annum, the nation's stock will be thereby encreased fifty thousand pounds per annum, beside the profit of a new dish, introduced to the tables of all gentlemen of fortune in the kingdom, who have any refinement in taste. And the money will circulate among ourselves, the goods being entirely of our own growth and manufacture. Fourthly, The constant breeders, beside the gain of eight shillings sterling per annum by the sale of their children, will be rid of the charge of maintaining them after the first year. How does the author's word choice in this excerpt imply a message other than the one explicitly stated?

This question seems to be incomplete. However, there is enough information to find the right answer.

In A Modest Proposal, Jonathan Swift´s suggestion that the Irish should eat their children as a solution to overpopulation and starvation functions as satire because it´s meant to criticize the treatment that the British government had had over the growing famine in Ireland.

Explanation:

Swift´s "A Modest Proposal" was a pamphlet published in 1729. His explanation about how, if poor tenants could use their children to get money, they would be able to pay their landlords, is a critic of how British landlords had been part of the problem by evicting people after seizing their corn and cattle. The entire excerpt treats children like cattle, implying that they can even become an asset of the national economy and feed the rich. And poor parents will not only get money but also would be eventually be relieved from the cost of maintaining their children, which means that children are just like any other commodity, not a human being that is loved.

in this passage from chapter 6 of "animal farm", by george orwell, what the author is ridiculing in this passage is the frivolity of some rules.

clover, the mare, believes she remembers that the fourth commandment forbade sleeping in beds because it was something that humans did. snowball, napoleon, and the pigs are brain-workers who look after the welfare of the farm. they are the obvious leaders because they are smart, and so they are entitled to eat the best food and sleep in beds. it is squealer, who says these lines making the difference between sleeping with sheets, what humans do, and sleeping in beds, what pigs do. the unwillingness to question authority makes the oppressed to obey without thinking.