In this case, the main sentence has an embedded clause at the end:
"<em>I think </em><em>that ’twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon</em><em>.</em>" (embedded clause in bold.)
This embedded sentence is <u>complex</u> as it has one independent clause ("<em>...the white men will be in a fix pretty soon.</em>") and a dependent clause ("<em>...that 'twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North...</em>")
The main sentence presents a simple syntactic pattern: S.V.O. (Subject-Verb-Object), as it contains a mono-transitive verb ("<em>think</em>") which requires a direct object following it ("<em>that...</em>"). The subject of the sentence is the personal pronoun "<em>I</em>". This S.V.O. pattern is present in sentences much simpler, such as "<em>I think this</em>" or "<em>I like that.</em>"
Well the target audiences are very different, because at the political party the speaker is trying to persuade the audience to agree with him/her where as the target audience for the academic paper are trying to tech their audience on the topic, also the thesis is more clearly stated in the academic paper.
The answer for that question would be B.<span>Both excerpts attempt to persuade Queen Elizabeth's audience that she is willing to sacrifice her life for England's well-being.</span>
Answer: Sean is not an effective speaker because he is disrespectful of others.
Although passion and decisiveness are important when fighting for a cause you care about, being disrespectful is not a good quality. When someone uses forceful language or interrupts, he is not letting others listen to counterclaims. This is a big problem as it limits the exchange of ideas. Moreover, someone who is disrespectful can be intimidating, which reduces everybody's participation in the debate.
