Answer:
The emergency caused the crisis team to exhaust all the response methods in its safety plan.
Explanation:
In simple terms, the word "exhaust" can mean "to use up" "to drain out" or "to make something tired. So, it simply means something that is used up to the brim, until there is nothing left.
According to the sentence from "Play", the word "exhaust" is used in such a way that it signifies or denotes how each play material must be used up to their limit before new material is given/ added. Similarly, in the same vein, the word "exhaust" can be used in the sentence where the emergency caused the response methods of safety plans to be used up.
Thus, the<u> correct use of the same word "exhaust" is seen in the last sentence.
</u>
text and press SHIFT + F3
Answer:
It fails to support its claim with specific, credible evidence and uses a disrespectful tone.
Explanation:
When giving arguments in favor or against a specific subject, they must be supported by reason and logic as well as credible evidence that can be compared with reality. They also need to be coherent with the things you are stating, this has to be done in a respectful tone as you are open to the idea of others comments and counterarguments. You are supposed to show you are right with these arguments, not by insulting or despising others.
In my opinion, this excerpt fails in both. It is not respectful and it's arguments are not strong enough.
He states that there is not proof of who is right or wrong on the debate adressed, he needs to support this with evidence. Who states that?
He the concludes that "no valid judgment can be made for everyone on whether smartphones should be banned from teens." This seems as an opinion based on his own reasoning.
After this, he starts making judgments about the people supporting the restriction, calling them naïve. This is not polite or useful. As I said, this is not based on evidence, he is contradicting himself as he stated in the first lines that there was no evidence of who was rigth or wrong.
The next lines express just his opinions based on his values and thoughts, evidence to support them is never presented.
The answer is letter A). Would you tell me some more about your experience working with children ♥️
Answer:
This is what I wrote:
Jack London believed that people more in touch with the wild are stronger than the civilized.
My "Jack London" paragraph:
Human beings who are more in touch with the wild are stronger, this is for the reason being of their ability to adapt and change from their knowledge, while a domesticated being is not as self-reliant. Those of the untamed wilderness would have to build their own shelters and live off the land which interprets their wild side, whereas the tame and cultivated rely on others and the rest of the society. Intelligence strives off of the wild from the power those humans have to learn and teach instead of just simply living.
Explanation:
This could be about tribes who live primitively or frontiersmen or pioneers, or homesteaders. People who had to build their own shelter, build their own homes, live off the lands, etc.
This is the best I could do and I think I am the only one who has answered this ;-;
I really hope it helps!
