The correct answer is Yes
I guess that depends on why they confiscated it if it was because they where contact people who where a bad influence and are creating problems for the teen then yes it is a good idea also if it was distracting the teen from homework also yes but it could also cause problems if it was taken when the teen goes somewhere and an emergency was to happen or the teen was to get lost
This hasn’t been punctuated coz I’m lazy
The sentence that best integrates information from two sources is "While one article claims that climate change does not affect sea levels, another article shows ..."
<h3>How to integrate two or more sources?</h3>
In writing, integrating sources implies using different reliable sources to support an idea or better explain an issue. If sources present contradictory information, the best is to:
- Briefly state the idea each source supports to show the contradiction between sources.
- Mention the type of source in each case (book, article, blog, etc.).
<h3>What is the best option?</h3>
The best option to integrate the two sources is "While one article claims that climate change does not affect sea levels, another article shows examples of U.S. states..."
The main reasons are:
- This mentions the type of sources (articles).
- This states why these are contradictory rather than only mentioning they have opposite information.
Learn more about reliable sources in: brainly.com/question/12203238
Wanna chat? Or join zoom?
<span>The sentence which is neutral is 2. Netta and Jim expressed different views on free trade. This is correct because the words "expressed different views" are quite neutral - there is nothing too positive or too negative about them. On the other hand. words such as wrangled in 1, argued vociferously in 3, and bickered in 4, show very strong emotions that are in no way neutral. </span>
