How does Thoreau support his claim in this excerpt?

A.
He uses reasoning, showing the logical consequences of supporting a cause that is wrong.
B.
He tells an anecdote about a townsman who refused to “march to Mexico” and what happened to him.
C.
He shares statistics about casualties in the Mexican-American War.
D.
He uses measurable evidence about the number of people who have refused to join the US Army.

Answer:

this isn't an answer but I'm wondering as well, I'm terrible at English and I think it sucks.

Explanation:

i could be c

Thoreau supports his claim in this excerpt: He shares statistics about casualties in the Mexican-American War. Thus, option C is the correct option.

Thoreau offers distinctive contributions to ontology, the philosophy of science, and radical political thinking in addition to his emphasis on ethics in an existential sense. Although though his writings on natural science were not even published until the late 20th century, despite the justifiable fame of his political articles, they assist to paint a more full picture of him as a thinker.

A series of manuscript volumes containing information on Native American religion and culture was one of the manuscripts he left incomplete. Thoreau's writings represent a perennially valuable challenge to our understanding of the processes and goals of philosophy itself and foreshadow certain subsequent advances in pragmatism, phenomenology, and environmental philosophy.

Learn more about Thoreau here:

https://brainly.com/question/6590105

#SPJ3

Pretend you are a part of the audience for the formal debate shown in the video below. Summarize the key points of both the affirmative and the opposing side. Then conduct some additional research to better inform yourself about the pros and cons of technology and smart devices, including the impact they have on the developing human brain. Finally, explain which side you agree with and why.

here is the transcript
"There's n othing smart about personalized intimate technology. It simply confirms our misplac ed ideal that the world revolv es around us.

Smart technology has made us smart in some unexpected ways. It's made us more responsive. It's made us more engaged.

What we've created, in other words, is an environment that is constantly frustrating our mind's ability to create deep knowledge into think deeply.

This is the greatest time in human history to be wanting to know. There is no better time. The access to information has never been this free.

We're losing that contemplative deep focused attentive state of mind that is crucial to the creation of knowledge, the creation of intelligence, and deep thinking in general.

In this age of constant distraction-- we can't focus-- we're watching seven years of Game of Th rones, the most complex narrative that we've ever seen in our world. Our universities are turning out experts and scholars who are deep into their topics-- deeper than ever, because they can go that deep because of the internet. We are knowing more and better than ever.

What we're losing is the sub tlety, the depth, the sophistication of thought. In an odd way, perhaps we're becoming like machi nes. But that, in an odd way, as well makes us du mber than we once were.

There are lots of things that people do with technology in this current moment that may not rise to the bar of tenured faculty and book writers. That doesn't necessarily mean it's dum b. What is d umb, and what is lying underneath that judgment? Buried in that is notions about what is appropriate disco urse, what is sufficiently merit-worthy.

We're not all broadcasting these deep thoughts. Were sending out links to sill y videos. We're going-- spending huge amounts of time on Fac ebook. We're spending lots of time on T witter, sending Snapc hats.

We've never had an opportunity like this, the ability to participate in the creation of knowledge. This is the smartest age we've ever had."