Evaluate the claim Celeste Headlee makes about the importance of communication. Then assess the evidence she cites to support the claim and identify any logical fallacies or faulty reasoning she uses in her argument.

glamis thou art, and cawdor; and shalt be what thou art promis'd; yet do i fear thy nature; it is too full o' the milk of human kindness to catch the nearest way: thou wouldst be great; art not without ambition; but without the illness should attend it. what thou wouldst highly, that wouldst thou holily; wouldst not play false, and yet wouldst wrongly win: thou'dst have, great glamis, that which cries, "thus thou must do, if thou have it: and that which rather thou dost fear to do than wishest should be undone." hie thee hither, that i may pour my spirits in thine ear; and chastise with the valor of my tongue all that impedes thee from the golden round, which fate and metaphysical aid doth seem to have thee crown'd withal.  

he lacks ambition.  

he is hesitant.  

he lacks courage.  

he has moral scruples.

the anecdote makes readers feel sorry for the man’s lack of heritage, then reminds readers that the man has an equally valuable heritage.

in "people in peace, not profit and war" chrisholm uses inductive reasoning for her argument against defense spending by stating that the new administration, like most americans, wanted to invest in social objectives, so they must not want to prioritize defense spending. mr. nixon said "we can delay no longer in launching new approaches to the problem that beset them", but chrisholm points out that the programs were delayed anyways.

very interesting story but where is the question what is actually a question i don't understand