Hope this is sort of what you were going for! :)
The destruction of any public property, be it statues or historical buildings, is completely unjustifiable. Not only does destroying these artifacts not benefit anyone, but it hurts countless people. From public workers, who'd have to either rebuild or clean up the destroyed property, to people with connections to the monuments having to deal with the losses, no one is benefited by blatant acts of destruction such as these. And, arguably, not even those who commit them.
Answer:
<u>Step 1: Determine which options are correct
</u>
<em>Which scenarios are considered ethically acceptable for journalists? Select three options/
</em>
- Option A: paying money to attend a conference about climate change in order to do research for an article
- Option C: ending an investigation because it may lead to violence and disunity in a local community
- Option D: interviewing the CEOs of two insurance companies that are competing against each other
Option B doesn't make sense because if you are getting paid by a politician, that can further produce bias which can then lead to false things being spoke/written. Option E doesn't make sense because if you use information from a wiki page, that source is not verified which means that the source is unreliable. Therefore, the correct options are A, C, and D.
<u>Look at attachment</u>
She went on the ride at the park. (The correct way to put it in a sentence)
A. he talked about the conflicts of slavery, how it shouldn’t be spread to the north, and how it caused the clivil war