Answer:
1. The benefit is that is passes the general message in a surreal manner, the intended message is passed but with a little sense of wit and humor which would create a soft landing on the readers mind without taking away the seriousness of the message passed.
2. Michael risks losing the attention of a few sentimental sect i.e, poor people that feel the joke was not necessary and that shots were taken at them. Not everyone is humorous.
3. The message would still be effective regardless only that, the humor embedded won;t be present and readers that love such would feel what was written was too serious lol.
4. 'The wounded eagle glided as fast as a kite in a storm', this implied that the manner with which the eagle was gliding down, it look as though it was a kite basking in the euphoria of the wind. In a serious tone, it can go like this; 'The wounded eagle quickly sought a resting place'.
Second example is ' Chelsea broke the bones of Manchester United like she was the grim reaper'. With a serious tone; 'Chelsea won Manchester United squarely'
5. Changing the tone made the argument more serious and focused on the intending point.
6. Not necessarily, it all depends on the reader but these days, authors try to spice up stories with a little bit of humor to ensure the attention of their readers stays intact and to also eliminate any chance of boredom.
Segregation of school, funds for education, job opportunities, less legal rights, lack of education, lack of access to a better future etc
Monroe Doctrine (1823) issued primarily to prevent European nations from future colonization in Latin America.
People conform to peer pressure because as imperfect humans we don't always make the right decisions so people conform to peer pressure because they may feel left out or accused of not doing what others are doing. Impact? well peer pressure is common and devastating so its like a burned scar emotionally. Me? No due to my age I haven't been in that type of situation but soon I will and I hope I don't give in to pressure.
Hello. You did not present the experiment to which this question refers, which makes it impossible for me to give you an answer. However, when searching for your question on the internet, I was able to find another question exactly the same as yours, which showed that Rachel was studying the causes and consequences of treating mental illness in patients with generalized anxiety disorder. In this experiment, she gave each participant an untested drug, a placebo and a nocebo and assessed how these substances altered the arousal of the sympathetic nervous system one week before and one week after the study.
If that is the case with her question, the two reactions that Rachel could use to operate the dependent variable would be placebo and nocebo.
We can reach this conclusion because both the nocebo and the placebo do not generate real effects in the participants, but it causes psychological effects, imagined by the patient, against the real medicine. In this case, both the placebo and the nocebo are capable of provoking pisological effects in the excitation of the sympathetic nervous system of the patients. Within an experiment, the variable that has the power to provoke something is the independent variable and it is this variable that allows the researcher to operate the dependent variable. In this case, we can consider that the nocebo and the placebo are the independent variables that can manipulate the dependent variable, which is the sympathetic nervous system excitation.
