The last section of the story is a flash forward. Readers must infer what happens in the time between Sergei's conversation with the fish and Yoni's final report on his video. Is this time sequence effective, or would it have been better to know the details about Sergei's decision?

it was not effective

Explanation:

This ultimately depends on the author's intention when writing the story. By making this time jump the author is relying on the reader to piece together the events through the few pieces of information provided. This makes the reader think and arrive at the conclusion through their own investigative work, which can be rewarding and fun but at the same time can leave some readers confused. If the events were explained thoroughly and the flash-forward removed then all the readers would know exactly what happened and how the story arrived at the conclusion. Therefore, I would say no it was not effective, and that it would have been better to know the details of Sergei's decision.

the man is cut in half.

explanation:

paine is arguying that they had tried everything before coming to the conclusion that they needed to fight for their freedom.

argument: "every quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual."

claim 1: "our prayers have been rejected with disdain; and only tended to convince us, that nothing flatters vanity, or confirms obstinacy in kings more than repeated petitioning and nothing hath contributed more than that very measure to make the kings of europe absolute."

claim 2: "wherefore, since nothing but blows will do, for god’s sake, let us come to a final separation, and not leave the next generation to be cutting throats, under the violated unmeaning names of parent and child."