Answer:
1A. Where were you when the earthquake happened?
B. I drove to work at the time
2A. What did you do at ten o'clock yesterday morning?
B. I helped my dad plant flowers in the garden
4A. Do you want to come to the cinema tonight?
B. I'm afraid I met Diane
3A. Do you get any plans for this summer?
The tone of the essay "A Modest Proposal" on a literal level is observant and objective. Throughout the essay, Swift shows the readers what he had observe of the poor people in an objective manner. Hence the observant and objective tone. In a satirical level, it denotes a pleading tone. Swift is proposing a solution to what he had observed and therefore pleaded with the people who can carry out his proposal.
Hello. This question is incomplete. The full question is:
Kalani and lael are students who have been comparing the total kinetic energy of an iceberg to an ice cube
Kalani’s Argument: My claim is that an iceberg has more total kinetic energy (thermal energy) than an ice cube. This is because even though an iceberg is about the same temperature as an ice cube, it is also much larger, so it is made of a lot more molecules. For this reason, an iceberg will have more total kinetic energy (thermal energy) than an ice cube.
Lael's Argument: An iceberg has more total kinetic energy (thermal energy) than an ice cube because it is larger and made of more molecules. This matters because molecules move, and moving things have kinetic energy, so each molecule adds its kinetic energy to the total. Since the iceberg and the ice cube are around the same temperature, the fact that the iceberg has extra molecules means that it will have more total kinetic energy (thermal energy).
Which argument is more convincing?
Answer:
Kalani's argument is more convincing.
Explanation:
Lael says that the fact that Icebrg has extra molecules means that it has greater kinetic energy and this is not true, since the kinetic energy is greater in bodies and objects that have greater speed. In addition, speed increases as a body has greater mass. In this case, we can consider Kalani's argument as more convincing, since she related the kinetic energy to the mass of the iceberg.
