Answer:
I think it's C
Explanation:
A - The claim doesn't address the why
But the thesis statement does address the why. It answers why:
WHY is there images happy children used for the "Healthy Choices" menu?
BECAUSE the restaurant chain is trying to draw attention away from its role in depleting the rain forest.
B - The student didn't use analysis to reach the claim
The students did analyze the image
C - The student didn't address the "so what?" question
The student does not give a follow up reasoning to why this matters. The student only tells us that the restaurant is trying to draw attention away from it's role in depleting the rain forest. The student doesn't tell us: Why should we care? You may think this is common sense, of course we care about the rain forest! But the thesis does not tell us this.
D - The claim isn't reasoned
They tell us the claim, and reasoning in this sentence: "...features images of happy children playing in neatly manicured parks because the restaurant chain is trying to draw attention away from its role in depleting the rain forest."
C makes the most sense as your answer, although my second guess would be D, english can be tricky.
False.
Paraphrasing is taking a comment and changing it all into your own words.
Hey can you tell me which sentence it is? put a picture up please
1. This sentence can mean two things:
1) A child-teaching expert is going to speak.
2) A child is teaching an expert how to speak.
2. This sentence can mean two things:
1) Dogs have faith in the Rehoming Center.
2) The name of the institution - "Dogs Trust Rehoming Center"
3. This sentence can mean two things:
1) Smoking rooms aren't available
2) Rooms in which there is no smoking are available
4. This sentence can mean two things:
1) Anadin is the fastest working medicine
2) Taking nothing instead of Anadin is the better choice
All of these sentences are ambiguous, meaning that they have at least two opposing meanings.
