Speaker 1: This presidential candidate has proven that he is untrustworthy and dishonest. Polls show that over 80 percent of the public agrees with me. As elected party leaders, we should be skeptical of appearing to support him. If he were to be elected, it would reflect badly on us. I encourage you to distance yourselves from him in order to save your own careers.

Speaker 2: The presidential candidate from the other party is a liar and a fraud. A poll taken last week says that I'm not the only one who thinks so: Over 80 percent of your fellow voters think so too. On Election Day, remember that he cannot be trusted, and get your friends and family to vote against him as well.

Which sentence best describes the difference between the statements?

A. They are being presented to different audiences.

B. They make different conclusions.

C. They address different topics.

D. They use different sources of evidence.

Question

History

Doll

9 October, 07:27

Speaker 1: This presidential candidate has proven that he is untrustworthy and dishonest. Polls show that over 80 percent of the public agrees with me. As elected party leaders, we should be skeptical of appearing to support him. If he were to be elected, it would reflect badly on us. I encourage you to distance yourselves from him in order to save your own careers.

Speaker 2: The presidential candidate from the other party is a liar and a fraud. A poll taken last week says that I'm not the only one who thinks so: Over 80 percent of your fellow voters think so too. On Election Day, remember that he cannot be trusted, and get your friends and family to vote against him as well.

Which sentence best describes the difference between the statements?

A. They are being presented to different audiences.

B. They make different conclusions.

C. They address different topics.

D. They use different sources of evidence.

+2

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Blackie · Answer 1

They are presented to different audiences--speaker 1 is addressing politicians and speaker 2 is addressing voters (citizens)

This is a part of historical thinking called 'sourcing'. There are clues in speaker 1 about how careers could be ruined if associated with this person running. Speaker 2 discusses not voting for this person and to convince others to also not vote.