Answer:
I think I could only help with that.in the first question,I think there's no question mark. I'm sorry for that mistake.hope it helps you good day.
There are struggles along the way
Answer:
Not all of the writer’s evidence is relevant to her argument, though. In defending the movie version of the book, she cites reviewer Peter Rainer:
Reviewers have offered equally high praise for the movie. Film critic Peter Rainer notes in his online movie review for the ?Christian Science Monitor,? “the great conundrum of the Holocaust is that it was perpetrated by human beings, not monsters. Few movies have rendered this puzzle so powerfully.” (Rainer, November 8, 2008) It is interesting to note that Rainer has also reviewed Richard Linklater’s ? Boyhood.? ?Boyhood ? is another child-centered movie. (Rainer, July 11, 2014)
Rainer’s comments about the strength of the movie are relevant. But the fact that Rainer has reviewed other child-centered movies adds nothing to the claim the writer is trying to support.
No writer is entirely wrong or entirely right. By applying critical analysis to the full text of a persuasive selection, readers can evaluate the persuasiveness of the arguments. Reading critically is essential for readers who want to navigate their way through published opinions, editorials, blog posts, theater and movie reviews, or any other persuasive texts. First, identify the writer’s claim. Second, examine the supporting evidence for relevance and reliability. Finally, decide whether or not the writer has argued for his or her claim persuasively
It would be epiccccccccccccccccccc (had to have 20)
I think the correct answer from the choices listed above is option A. <span>In "nefarious war" these walls built against the tartars refer to the tower of babel. Hope this answers the question. Have a nice day.</span>
