Question

by 35 states. unfortunately, no additional states had voted for ratification before the new deadline and the proposed amendment died on june 30, 1982.
3 it is not really dead. on july 14, 1982, the amendment was reintroduced in congress, using the form devised in 1972. the amendment was referred to the house and senate judiciary committees, but no further action was taken.
4 this year, the era was reintroduced in the senate on january 26 as senate joint resolution 10, with 56 cosponsors. it was reintroduced in the house on january 3 as house joint resolution 1, with 238 cosponsors. ...
5 a constitutional amendment which guarantees equal rights under the law to all persons regardless of sex is long overdue. i personally find it difficult to understand the controversy that has swirled around this issue. it is a simple matter. in a society of laws, which the united states is, all citizens must have equal standing. anything less is simply unacceptable.
6 i fear that too many well-meaning individuals have lost sight of the simple and profound elegance of the proposition and have gone looking for demons and dragons. there are none. the equal rights amendment is what it says—nothing more, nothing less. we all are equal. that is all there is to it.
7 no one would disagree with the notion that the united states has long been moving toward equality of rights without the era. indeed, great strides have been made. the

▶ how does the organizational structure at the end of senator deconcini’s speech support its appeal to its intended audiences?
○ a. by ending with a passionate call to action, the speech appeals to lawmakers and citizens who value justice and progress.
○ b. by listing the era’s failures first, the speech discourages further efforts to pass the amendment.
○ c. by combining historical context & legal references, it builds credibility with both legal experts and everyday americans.
○ d. by focusing only on statistics and legal jargon, the speech limits its ability to inspire broad public support.

Explanation:

To determine the answer, we analyze each option:

• Option A: The end of the speech (text like "all citizens must have equal standing" and "no one would disagree... moving toward equality") has a passionate call to action, appealing to lawmakers (via legislative details) and citizens (via equality message).
• Option B: Listing the ERA’s reintroduction isn’t discouraging; it shows effort, so B is wrong.
• Option C: The speech uses constitutional/legal references but no historical context or specific legal expert appeal, so C is incorrect.
• Option D: The speech doesn’t focus only on stats/jargon; it has a broad appeal, so D is wrong.

Answer:

A. By ending with a passionate call to action, the speech appeals to lawmakers and citizens who value justice and progress.