Type your response in the box.

Before 1789, people in France lived under absolute rule—the king had total control of the government. The people fought the revolution to gain rights such as freedom of speech and greater participation in the government. The revolution was the start of a new era for France. But soon after, Napoleon Bonaparte came to power. He ruled with little input from others and conquered neighboring countries, while generally preserving the revolution’s changes, such as freedom of speech and religion.

In a sense, the revolution came full circle—it started and ended with one leader having nearly total control of the country. What does this indicate about the revolution? Did it succeed or fail? Explain your views in a short paragraph of four or five sentences.

I think the French Revolution was a success. Although it started and ended with one leader having control, the common people were better off under Napoleon than under King Louis XVI. Napoleon was a better ruler than Louis because he allowed rights that the people didn’t have under the king, such as freedom of speech and religion.

Explanation:

Sample Answer on PLATO

just say it's your friend did it and you had no idea?

- "a nonrestrictive clause functions as a modifier to a noun (that is an object, person or concept). these clauses can be described by the following three options: it is set off by comas, it contains a subject and a verbs and it adds nonessential information to the sentence.

for example, in "here is bill gates, who confounded microsoft software company" we can identify "who confounded microsoft software company" as a nonrestrictive clause modifying the noun bill gates. this clause can be describes as a nonrestrictive clause because it is separated by a comma, it adds nonessential information to identify who bill gates is and it must contain both a subject (who) and a verb (confounded)."