1. The author is very much persuading you against Flaherty. He keeps insisting that nothing is being done with him in charge and that the other canidate is much better.
2. There is a lot of this here. The appeal to emotion is so plain and out in the open. The author is manipulating your brain with the text and make you think "wow, this 1 guy is doing a bad job, the other guy will be better. Let's vote for him!"
3. The author makes the point that Digby is a much better canidate than Flaherty and that Digby can run the town better.
D. Brothers Andrew and Robert discuss Robert’s upcoming journey. Robert expresses that he is very unhappy and wishes to travel with their uncle. Andrew understands and wants to be a good brother but is concerned about Robert’s health.
Explanation:
The above is the best statement which best summarizes the characters' relationship in the given scene relating to Andrew and Robert.
The correct answer for the question that is being presented above is this one: "use evidence to support an interpretation." The validity of a critical essay is determined most by how the author uses evidence to support an interpretation. These evidence will help prove an idea.
I can't really see the underlined words, but I'm guessing that "spanokapita, moussaka, and gyro" are the underlined words. These words are names of Greek dishes, which makes B your best answer choice.
