Definitions, details such as the five senses. and (introduction) (1st paragraph) (2nd paragraph) (3rd paragraph) and (conclusion)
Answer:
self-destruction
Explanation:
It seems as if this is a self-destruction , why?" The man's
hands were behind his back, the wrists bound
with a cord. A rope closely encircled his neck." His hands being behind his back with his "wrist bound with a cords," is basically letting you know that he made up his mind, and that there's no turning back, and a rope is "closely encircled his neck," which explains that he's choking himself.
Answer: A campaign speech delivered to a group of students would benefit best from informal speech.
Explanation: Using formal speech may make the speaker seem snobby or stilted. Informal -- but still appropriate -- language keeps the speaker on the same level as the other students while still conveying the goals and points of the campaign.
Hope this helped and consider marking brainleist?
:D
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.
