Which sentence best states how the author develops his thesis?
A.
The author gives examples and restates the thesis.
B.
The author provides examples and evidence.
C.
The author answers an introductory question.
D.
The author provides evidence from experts.

Answer:

C.

Explanation:

Its option C. because it grammatically make sense and it's grammatically correct.

Answer:

The answer is 50% bigger

Explanation:

I believe that would be "taking", but please correct me if I'm wrong ^^

Answer: The verb Is taking. Please give me Brainliest

Explanation: verb

a word used to describe an action, state, or occurrence, and forming the main part of the predicate of a sentence, such as hear, become, happen.

Answer:

Extrapolation does not always predict the future accurately is explained below in complete detail.

Explanation:

In common, extrapolation is not very reliable and the outcome so received are to be observed with some shortage of confidence. the difficulty with extrapolation is that you have blank to verify how correct your model is outside the scope of your data. Because there are no data to back an extrapolation, one cannot apprehend whether the model is correct or not.

Answer:

D

Explanation:

a semicolon needs to be place for an independent clause and a connecting dependent clause

Answer:

in my opinion, D

Explanation:

Answer: Leave them in the Field of Leaving to die

Explanation:

In the village where Kira lived, if a child was born weak or with deformities, the Council and the village would recommend that the child be taken to the ''Field of Leaving'' outside the village where they would eventually die if they were not first killed by wild beasts who go there sometimes.

Kira was almost left there as she had a leg deformity but her mother used her influence to stop this from happening.

Answer:

They are male and lived in the white-house at some point.

Answer:

What do u mean “voice” so like record?

Explanation:

I notice that only one of the men has a mask on, I notice that they are both getting gas. I wonder where they are both going. I think this image is trying to say that there are two types of people, people who wear masks and people who don't.

Answer:

logos

Explanation:

logos uses facts,studies, and statistics to appeal to their audience

Answer:

B. The narrator is most alarmed by the white color of the whale.

Explanation:

plato/edmentum.

The correct option is B. The narrator is most alarmed by the white color of the whale the best identifies the summary of the passage.

Herman Melville, an American author, published The Whale in 1851. The novel is the sailor Ishmael's account of the obsessive hunt for vengeance by Ahab, the captain of the whaling ship Pequod, against Moby, the enormous white sperm whale that bit off Ahab's leg at the knee on the ship's previous expedition.

Thus, The destructive power of nature is represented by the white whale as a metaphor. Although nature is a neutral force that pursues its natural course without taking sides, Ahab appears to perceive nature as possessing power over him, which is something he cannot tolerate.

Learn more about The Whale here:

https://brainly.com/question/17104433

#SPJ2

Answer:

I believe its Infer, Hope this helps you

Answer:

Conspiracy theories can range from complete bogus to things that could be facts. For example, there was a conspiracy theory on the internet a few years ago about the Mandela effect, which was later proven wrong. However, around that timeframe a conspiracy theory was released, basically showing evidence that Elvis Presley did not die when he said he did. It is still currently being investigated. Many people enjoy seeing what people on the internet come up with, as well as coming up with theories of their own. Many people on different platforms on the internet have made a career using conspiracy theories, suck as popular creator Shane Dawson, and Jessii Vee. Honestly, you could consider conspiracy theories a genre on the internet now.

Explanation:

Hope this helped a little, feel free to change it if needed :))

Answer:

It was a dusty old cabin in the middle of the woods. Everything was covered in a thick layer of cobwebs and dust. A creepy old skeleton hung in the corner, a painting of its shadow hanging right next to it. The shelf was full of old, cracked jars, half of them full of spiders. A sack of 10 year old rice was slumped on the floor, dusty rice grains spilled on the tile. A table in the corner had dusty, broken dishes on the button shelf, and useless junk on the top shelf.  Candles flickered all over, giving the room a spooky glow, and big, dusty brown vases hung from the ceiling. No one had been inside for at least 10 years. It gave you the most terrible case of the jitters.

Explanation:

Hope this can help.

Answer:2

im guessing.but you need to show the paragraph

Answer:

Explanation:

B

Answer:

that describes different cultures

Explanation:

Answer:

man vs. self

Explanation:

The primary conflict in “The Most Dangerous Game” can be considered one of man vs. man, as Rainsford attempts to outrun and outwit the sadistic Zaroff, who hunts humans for sport. This conflict also includes elements of man vs. nature, as Rainsford is at the mercy of the elements on Ship-Trap Island and tries to use his jungle surroundings to his advantage. In addition, a man vs. self conflict is present in that Rainsford struggles with his own fear.

Alex Jensen is the narrator of the story, as shown in option A.

The narrator is the person who is telling the story. This narrator can be a character in the story or not and this completely changes the way the narration is done.

With the reading of the text, we realize that the narrator refers to Sam with possessive pronouns, which indicates that the narrator is Alex Jensen.

More information about the first-person point of view at the link:

https://brainly.com/question/13845140

Answer:

I think Robert but i dont know

Explanation:

There are different ways a character can be developed and these include through:

This refers to the ways a character is developed in a story and how their role changes from one form to another.

Please note that your question is incomplete so I gave you a general overview to help you get a better understanding of the concept,

Read more about characterization here:
https://brainly.com/question/2165827

Answer:

The regimes made Haiti a more dangerous place and made traveling in and out of the country very difficult. This made it very hard to do his job and help people.  The junta made it especially dangerous for him. At one point soldiers even stop his car and poin guns at his head until he says “Long live the Hatian army”. He got 10,000 dollars from John WHite to fund an underground pacifist resistance movement. His only protection is that his superior medical knowledge makes him too difficult to be killed. He ends up leaving Haiti and doesnt come back till Aristide is re-instated.

Explanation:

Answer:

C.  with the United States joining in 1984

Explanation:

By 1991, over 80 jurisdictions worldwide had followed suit (with the United States joining in 1984).

Answer:

Explanation:

by using a flashback

Answer:

'over the cat' ?

Explanation:

This is a guess but from experience and other peoples answers I believe this it is because 'Martha' is a noun and a word not a phrase and same with each other individual word, same thing goes for 'the cat'

the passage can be best described as: "the british legislature extended an unwarranted jurisdiction".

we can say that because the text clearly states how the people of the colonies warned the british about their excessive desire to rule over them, without taking into consideration the difficulties their brothers had experienced in america: they struggled to establish the colonies, to adapt to new types of weather, fight with the natives, etc., and how they now see (or then saw) the only way out was to cut all ties with the british, since they ignored the people's petitions

Answer:

Crane uses personification frequently throughout this excerpt. He uses it to create images that vividly describe how Henry sees both the war and his surroundings in relationship to himself.

Explanation give me 5/5

Answer:

Explanation:

I believe the toughest conflicts to resolve are the ones in which you must make a choice, but all the options contain an element that seems to violate a value that is important to you. It is difficult to do the right thing when the “perfect” right thing is not among the choices you seem to face.

I was indicted, to my complete surprise, in May 2003. I was charged by the DOJ with 20 counts of criminal wrongdoing, all associated (somehow) with lying about technology. The charges seemed inexplicable to me, so I resolved to fight them even though I was offered many opportunities to enter into deals with the DOJ. The problem with the deals was that, even though I was told by everyone that they were “favorable” towards me, they required me to lie about something. It wasn’t the punishment that bothered me as much as being asked to lie.

Therefore, I fought the DOJ tooth and nail for nine years. I gave up my life savings (everything that was not frozen by the DOJ), my home, my family time, my social life, etc. to defend myself. To stretch my resources, I made my defense a full-time job, doing as much work myself as I could manage in order to save on legal fees. I worked seven days a week, learning the law, researching my case, helping to draft motions and briefs, preparing for trial, etc.

I endured a 3 1/2-month trial in 2005 and beat the DOJ. After the trial, through jury and court decisions, 14 of the original 20 counts were acquitted; all that was left were six counts on which the jury had hung. Instead of dismissing the remaining counts after their trial defeat, the DOJ re-indicted me on the six hung counts. I then went through two long appeal processes [to get the six hung counts dismissed]; both appeals made it as far as petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court. But, ultimately, the Supreme Court did not hear my appeals, so it was on toward a second trial.

I dedicated myself to preparation for the re-trial. By this time, it was no longer simply a personal struggle. The DOJ continued to offer deals, but I felt that I had a mission to defeat the DOJ again at trial. I had seen too much in the justice process that was not honorable and not right. And I felt that the system would never get better if people like me, who had the resources and temperament to fight, gave up in favor of a deal. The DOJ deserved to get defeated decisively and publicly at trial. I was ready and eager for trial, with more than three dozen witnesses, including the most credible people available — my attorneys told me that they had never before seen a more impressive group of witnesses. I desperately wanted my day in court.

But then I ran out of money. And this is where the conflict arose.

I could borrow money from people who freely offered it to me to continue my defense. Or I could accept a deal with the DOJ, by this time a quite “reasonable” deal. Neither choice was good. The deal stuck in my craw because it was a contrivance intended mainly to offer an easy way out for the DOJ, essentially a negotiated mutual cease fire rather than a rational settlement. But borrowing money was all but unthinkable to me — I could not stomach the idea of using other people’s money to defend myself — I did not want to spread the terrible financial impact of my indictment beyond myself and, most certainly, not to good friends.

Ultimately, I chose the deal. I simply could not ask others to accept a financial risk on my behalf when a deal was being offered by the DOJ that everybody told me was extremely favorable to me. I felt that using other people’s money to fight the DOJ would be self-indulgent, given the other options on the table. So my resolution was to accept the deal offered by the DOJ.

The truth is that I am not sure that this conflict has been resolved. I will always feel that I let others down, others caught in the same kind of insane trap which had ensnared me, by not seeing the fight through and finally beating the DOJ again at trial, decisively and publicly. Such a defeat might have helped those others in a way that a hollow deal cannot. Therefore, while I made a decision which ended one conflict, it really only launched another, and more intense, internal conflict which will be with me forever.

[You can read about the struggles of Rex Shelby and other Enron Broadband executives in two recently published books: Blogging Enron: The Enron Broadband Story by author and blogger, Cara Ellison; and Acquittal: An Insider Reveals the Stories and Strategies Behind Today’s Most Infamous Verdicts by prominent trial consultant, Richard Gabriel.

If you enjoyed Rex’s essay, please Recommend and Share it. And if you have questions or comments, please use the Notes feature here on Medium, or visit the Rumble Press Forums for a more in-depth discussion of the essay. You can also Follow Rumble Press on Medium for additional essays and stories. Thank you!]

Answer:

true

Explanation:

Answer:

True

Explanation:

Cuz Jesus was persecuted of those who opposed him from others religion like the Pharisees.

Answer:

A

Explanation:

It's represents "it is," so simply it is in each sentence rather than it's. Then you will find that the correct answer is A. Hope this helps. :)