How does Goldman’s tone shift in the final paragraph? A. In the first two paragraphs, her tone is enthusiastic; but in the last paragraph, she is pessimistic.

B. In the first two paragraphs, her tone is sarcastic; but in the last paragraph it is serious and respectful.

Address to the Jury

by Emma Goldman

Emma Goldman was a well-known anarchist, meaning someone who believed voluntary organizations should replace governments. In 1917, Goldman and fellow anarchist Alexander Berkman were put on trial for conspiring against the US government by publishing anarchist magazines. In the following speech, Goldman defends herself and Berkman.

The stage having been appropriately set for the three-act comedy, and the first act successfully played by carrying off the villains in a madly dashing automobile—which broke every traffic regulation and barely escaped crushing everyone in its way—the second act proved even more ludicrous. Fifty thousand dollars bail was demanded, and real estate refused when offered by a man whose property is valued at three hundred thousand dollars--and that after the District Attorney had . . . promised to accept the property for one of the defendants, Alexander Berkman, thus breaking every right guaranteed even to the most heinous criminal.

Finally, the third act, played by the Government in this court during the last week. The pity of it is that the prosecution knows so little of dramatic construction, otherwise it would have equipped itself with better dramatic material to sustain the continuity of the play. As it was, the third act fell flat, utterly, and presents the question, Why such a tempest in a teapot?

Gentlemen of the jury, my comrade and co-defendant having carefully and thoroughly gone into the evidence presented by the prosecution, and having demonstrated its entire failure to prove the charge of conspiracy or any overt acts to carry out that conspiracy1, I shall not impose upon your patience by going over the same ground, except to emphasize a few points. To charge people with having conspired to do something which they have been engaged in doing most of their lives—namely their campaign against war, militarism and conscription2 as contrary to the best interests of humanity--is an insult to human intelligence.

C. In the first two paragraphs, her tone is objective; but in the last paragraph it is subjective and biased.

D. In the first two paragraphs, her tone is carefree; but in the last paragraph she is seething with anger.

Read the passage. excerpt from "why equal pay is worth fighting for" by senator elizabeth warren, april 17, 2014 i honestly can't believe that we're still arguing over equal pay in 2014. when i started teaching elementary school after college, the public school district didn't hide the fact that it had two pay scales: one for men and one for women. women have made incredible strides since then. but 40 years later, we're still debating equal pay for equal work. women today still earn only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, and they're taking a hit in nearly every occupation. bloomberg analyzed census data and found that median earnings for women were lower than those for men in 264 of 265 major occupation categories. in 99.6 percent of occupations, men get paid more than women. that's not an accident; that's discrimination. the effects of this discrimination are real, and they are long lasting. today, more young women go to college than men, but unequal pay makes it harder for them to pay back student loans. pay inequality also means a tougher retirement for women. . for middle-class families today, it usually takes two incomes to get by, and many families depend as much on mom's salary as they do on dad's, if not more. women are the main breadwinners, or joint breadwinners, in two-thirds of the families across the country, and pay discrimination makes it that much harder for these families to stay afloat. women are ready to fight back against pay discrimination, but it's not easy. today, a woman can get fired for asking the guy across the hall how much money he makes. here in the senate, sen. barbara mikulski (d-md.) introduced the paycheck fairness act to give women the tools to combat wage discrimination. it would ensure that salary differences have something to do with the actual job that they are doing, and not just because they are women. senator warren states that the effects of pay discrimination are long-lasting. is this a valid argument supported by accurate evidence? no; warren weakens her point by claiming that the paycheck fairness act would "give women the tools to combat wage discrimination." yes; warren supports her point by noting, "for middle-class families today, it usually takes two incomes to get by." yes; warren supports her point by noting, "pay inequality also means a tougher retirement for women." no; warren weakens her point by noting, "today, a woman can get fired for asking the guy across the hall how much money he makes."