Answer:
Graffiti should be considered a crime. If someone calls vandalizing other peoples property art, then that person is wrong. Graffiti is wrong because it is done on properties that the artist do not own , most of the time graffiti is disrespectful, and it is very costly to the community.
Graffiti is wrong because it is done on properties that the artist do not own. If someone was to vandalize another persons home with graffiti written on it, that person would feel very disrespected. Although sometimes graffiti is beautiful, we would not want a person to vandalize our property and have them call it art. It would be fine if a graffiti artist were to draw on their own property because it belongs to them. It is very disrespectful for someone to draw on someone else's property without permission. Which brings me to my second point.
Most of the time graffiti is disrespectful. The artist have no concern on what they draw that might offend other people who have the chance to see it. Graffiti artist are truly gifted, so this means they can make their art look very realistic. Someone might say, if someone does not want to see it then they should not look. Whoever might say that is very wrong. Graffiti artist tend to draw art on almost anything that they can. This means they draw it for the public to see, whether the public wishes to see it or not. Some graffiti artist do not care what they write, but parents do. A parents does not want to walk with their child somewhere crowded, and see something inappropriate drawn or written for their child to see. Which brings me to my third and final point.
Graffiti is very costly to the community to get it removed. That is why graffiti artist should not draw offensive things, but they do anyway and the community has to pay to get it removed. This is just like the app Instagram. If someone were to post something offensive towards the public, someone would report it, so it could get removed because what they saw were either offensive to them, their children, or they were thinking about everyone else that might come across that post. This relates to graffiti. If the community were to leave something that were offensive to the community there would be problems, not small problems, but big enough problems that could get people hurt.
Although graffiti is a wonderful thing to see, it should be called a crime because it can corrupt young minds and cause problems.
Explanation:
Sorry if this is not what you were looking for!
Answer:
I don't know what to say and answer
<u>Answer</u>:
The excerpt from the selection that best helps you to visualize Mrs. Pratchett is - "...Mrs. Pratchett's skinny goat's legs trotting to keep up with him. So, the Option D is the accurate answer.
<u>Explanation</u>:
In Roald Dahl’s “Boy: Tales of Childhood,” is a medium through which he recalls his school days and the pranks he played during his young age. Mrs. Pratchett is a character found in his autobiography and was the owner of a sweet shop. She was described as a mean, small, dirty, skinny lady with a moustache. Her apron was greasy and grey in appearance. Her blouse had marks of breakfast on it. Her hands were dirty and full of grime. Plus, she had goat-like legs. All these adjectives give the reader an idea about how Mrs. Pratchett actually looked.
Hello.
The answer is
<span>A.The literary device used in this sentence is imagery.
Its not a simile becasue there is no like or as.
Its not personfaction because you need a animal or plant that has human qualty.
Its not a methpor becasue that could be real.
So its "T</span><span>he literary device used in this sentence is imagery."
Have a nice day</span>
