# data[].attributes.body
No because sometimes you cant surrender and there be peace.Like during world war 2 if everyone was to just surrender the Nazi would have just kept pushing till everyone was a communist country under there control and there is no peace under a communist control.

# data[].attributes.body
It makes it effective by comparing it to things that happen in the past. It is also comparing it to the bible "Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs?"Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world?

# data[].attributes.body
NO because if we surrendered during WWII the Nazis would have continued slaughtering the Jews. if we had not have entered the war that would have happened but thankfully we did and we stop the Nazis and the killing of Jews.

# data[].attributes.body
used them as examples since their well known groups/people and everybody can easily see why he chose theses examples.

# data[].attributes.body
No i don't agree with the statement. Surrendering isn't always going to bring peace. Many of the wars that have been fought haven't brought peace to that country.

# data[].attributes.body
No because, your not guaranteed peace when you surrender.

# data[].attributes.body
They are all examples of people who did not surrender and gives people a sense of something they can relate with .

# data[].attributes.body
This speech is effective  because  he is telling people to stand up and fight because if we do not we would lose WW2 "The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all." and also" You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance."

# data[].attributes.body
He alludes these people/groups because he wanted to bring the audience closer by using well known topics.

# data[].attributes.body
He used them because he knew that they were all well know events and mostly everyone knew at least one of the examples.This brings the audience closer to the speech by getting to their emotions.

# data[].attributes.body
"and then what"is a rhetorical question. It effects the audience by making them think about whats happening next. "continue to accommodate" is Parallelism. It effects the audience by letting them know its important by repeating the phrase.

# data[].attributes.body
When he used the logos in the beginning  by sorta of stating the obvious on how things can be settled with using that logic,then he uses then uses logos in the second paragraph by saying people back in history had to fight for their right.

# data[].attributes.body
The speech is effective because he is saying you can't be for big government, big taxes, big bureaucracy, and still be for the little guy so it is encouraging people to stand up and fight.

# data[].attributes.body
, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance."  This means that there is a price to pay at one point, and that when you have got to a point you want to be. there is no need to keep going.but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.

This is the point where you can argue if the only way of peace is to surrender, which he THOUGHT.

# data[].attributes.body
Winston Churchill is ethos because he was prime minister in the World War II.
"Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world" is allusion because it mentions Moses and Jesus. And everyone else knows them.

# data[].attributes.body
This speech is effective because it was telling people to fight or surrender. "that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender." "There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender."