In regards to my grades on the previous primary source readings. You can’t ask an question that ultimately relies on my interpretation of text and expect my interpretation to be what ultimately was the correct answer. Using the question who is the audience? After reading a 1-2 page or even 5 page texts is super subjective especially if you yourself stated that no outside information is needed besides the primary source readings that you provide us. In the instance of Machiavelli “The Prince” you ask who the audience is and I base my answer on the fact that only the people who were in power or wealthy could truly understand everything in which Machiavelli refers to in regards of acting the role and keeping a position of power. While in actuality it was written to inform people of how the government is deceiving you, it is written as an instructional text on how to live as a prince, at least the 2 pages we were assigned to read. Now how can you just slash out the word wealthy in my answer and the word succeed in my answer: “The audience were a fairly wealth people.” And: “the agenda was to teach people how to succeed” if it all depends on how someone interprets the reading.. if this text was only gifted to people in power it would seem that way, but since it was distributed to the public it was used to inform them but not knowing who actually received the text greatly differs the perspective in which Machiavelli is writing.
Now it seems that all you did was write -2 and leave the comment “develop” on 50% of my answers. I answered all of these questions precisely now if you had wanted to ask for a more in-depth response maybe there should have been a separate question, but to give me no points on any of these when I gave a completely true answer to the question being asked is absurd.
“What glimpse do we get into the relationship of the ruler and ruled in this document?” The ruled only see what the ruler allows them to, and only majority opinion matters” Those answers were truly the only glimpse into their relationship in this text..
I also find it ironic that u wrote “develop” 5 times as comments to my answers, yet you don’t even develop your comments, looks hypocritical.