Based on the dialect used throughout the adventures of huckleberry finn, which of the following statements about the characters within the story is most accurate?
a. jim’s use of dialect suggests that he is working hard to gain favor with the duke and the king.
b. the king’s use of dialect suggests that he may not actually be a king and is simply posing as one.
c. huck’s use of dialect suggests that he is just a young boy who wants to fit in with the crowd.
d. the duke’s use of dialect suggests that he really is a duke, attempting to act as a common swindler.

B. The king’s use of dialect suggests that he may not actually be a king and is simply posing as one.

Explanation:

In “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” The King is posing a real King to get his money, however, he is exposed as humbug because he is not proper to speak and he cannot fake the British accent natural of the real King, hence the real king is from England.

B. The king’s use of dialect suggests that he may not actually be a king and is simply posing as one.

Explanation:

The "King's" dialect is certainly American Southern of low extraction. Despite the fact that he can trap his way around with expert articulation and bits of learning and culture it is apparent for an attentive, instructed peruser that he isn't a piece of French respectability since not exclusively would his language and his habits be increasingly detailed, originating from a favored upbringing; his accent would be not so much American but rather more European which is unquestionably not the case as his lines uncover.

i think its:

c. a disadvantage of the proposal is that there will be fewer people under the monarchy.

read this passage from the crisis. what rationale is paine using for going to war with great britain? my own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. not all the treasures of the world, so far as i believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for i think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am i to suffer it? what signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? if we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other.

it is waged war against an army of countrymen

it would lead to independence from britain

it would be an offensive war

it would be a defensive war