How does the author develop the theme that an unwanted object can be another person's treasure?

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

very interesting story but where is the question what is actually a question i don't understand

question: which statement best describes a similarity in purpose between the frames and excerpt?

answer: both inform the reader that faryad and liaqat were not given the chance to tell their version of events at the police station

explanation: so as you see they were told to leave before they could tell there story

question answered by

(jacemorris)

" the king sits next to a crown , which symbolizes his power" is   correct   the king is standing on his feet wearing expensive clothing next to the crown.

"the king is wearing elaborate clothing." is correct. this is a symbol of wealth and   royal power.

the king is not dressed like a soldier but like a monarch.

"the king has a sword but he   sits next to a helmet" is correct.

the king is not sitting on the floor.