Question

Now in the third year of his (FDR) administration, we find more of our people unemployed than at any other time. We find our houses empty and our people hungry, many of them half-clothed and many of them not clothed at all….

We find not only the people going further into debt, but that the United States is going further into debt. The states are going further into debt, and the cities and towns are even going into bankruptcy. The condition has become deplorable. Instead of his promises, the only remedy that Mr. Roosevelt has prescribed is to borrow more money if he can and to go further into debt. The last move was to borrow $5 billion more on which we must pay interest for the balance of our lifetimes, and probably during the lifetime of our children…

That is why the Share Our Wealth societies are forming in every nook and corner of America….They have a great work to perform. Here is what we stand for in a nutshell:

Number one, we propose that every family in America should at least own a homestead equal in value to not less than one third the average family wealth…. So our first proposition means that every family will have a home and the comforts of a home up to a value of not less than around $5,000 or a little more than that.

Number two, we propose that no family shall own more than three hundred times the average family wealth, which means that no family shall possess more than a wealth of approximately $5 million….

Number three, we propose that every family shall have an income equal to at least one third of the average family income in America…. We propose that no family will have an earning of less than around $2,000 to $2,500 and that none will have more than three hundred times the average less the ordinary income taxes, which means that a million dollars would be the limit on the highest income.
What is the dominant form of evidence used in this passage?

A) ethical evidence
B) logical evidence
C) emotional evidence
D) there is no type of evidence that is dominant

Answer 1

Now to cover the principles of the share-our-wealth society, I give them in order:

1. To limit poverty:

We propose that a deserving family shall share in our wealth of America at least for one third the average. An average family is slightly less than five persons. The number has become less during depression. The United States total wealth in normal times is about $400 billion or about $15,000 to a family. If there were fair distribution of our things in America, our national wealth would be three or four or five times the $400 billion, because a free, circulating wealth is worth many times more than wealth congested and frozen into a few hands as is America's wealth. But, figuring only on the basis of wealth as valued when frozen into a few hands, there is the average of $15,000 to the family. We say that we will limit poverty of the deserving people. One third of the average wealth to the family, or $5,000, is a fair limit to the depths we will allow any one man's family to fall. None too poor, none too rich.

–Huey Long,

February 5, 1934

Why does Long believe that distributing about $15,000 to each US family would increase the nation’s wealth to more than $400 billion?

It would create hope for the lower classes and inspire them to work harder.

It would make things more even for all Americans.

It would limit the depths of poverty that anyone can sink into.

It would increase cash circulation in the market because more people would be spending.

Step-by-step explanation:

what is the answer? pls never mind the answer was d

Answer 2

Answer: Logical evidence

Step-by-step explanation:

This whole section is very straightforward. There are a lot of statistics, numbers, and facts for the American people.

Thus, it can't be emotional evidence.

To continue, its not discussing ethics (people's behavior). It's just assigning funds to American families.

So, it has to be logical evidence, which makes sense because FDR describes the condition of the US and the moves he has to take to make sure that the country doesn't end up in economic difficulty.