Answer:
C) by giving an example of how Mary Beth Tinker did, in fact, disrupt her mathematics class
.
Explanation:
Petitioner John F. Tinker, 15 years of age, and solicitor Christopher Eckhardt, 16 years of age, went to secondary schools in Des Moines, Iowa. Candidate Mary Beth Tinker, John's sister, was a 13-year-old understudy in middle school.
In December 1965, a gathering of grown-ups and understudies in Des Moines held a gathering at the Eckhardt home. The gathering resolved to pitch their complaints to the threats in Vietnam and their help for a détente by wearing dark armbands amid the Christmas season and by fasting on December 16 and New Year's Eve. Candidates and their folks had recently occupied with comparable exercises, and they chose to take part in the program.
The principals of the Des Moines schools wound up mindful of the arrangement to wear armbands. On December 14, 1965, they met and received a strategy that any understudy wearing an armband to class would be approached to expel it, and on the off chance that he declined he would be suspended until he returned without the armband. Candidates knew about the guideline that the school specialists embraced.
On December 16, Mary Beth and Christopher wore dark armbands to their schools. John Tinker wore his armband the following day. They were altogether sent home and suspended from school until they would return without their armbands. They didn't come back to class until after the arranged period for wearing armbands had lapsed - that is, until after New Year's Day.
I think it’s C because no reasoning is given to back up the claim
