"The Cossack as the cat; he was the mouse. Then it was Rainsford that knew the full meaning of terror" is the best detail that supports that claim.
Answer:
the argument presented by the lawyer was clear and vivid that he had a clear chance of winning the trial.
Explanation:
Answer:
The ending of the story changes as follows:
<em> Before he could get into the car, a loud thud reverberates off his head. One of the people in the crowd had successfully aimed a block of wood, 3 inch on both sides, to the back of his head. There was no use turning to check who the culprit was. The pain was begining to set in. Smitty half entered and half jumped into the car as the Sheriff on cue depressed the accelerator almost sending Smitty out the car again. As the car broke inertia, it threw Smitty with a strong jolt into the car. He almost hit his head on the dashboard but braced himself with his right hand.</em>
<em>The door oscillated rapidly and widly about three times before Smitty caught it and slammed it shut.</em>
<em>The car roared away raising a lot of dust as it sped off with the crowd pursuing behind them.</em>
Answer:
C. The passage has a strong claim that is not backed up by sound reasoning
Explanation:
The passage made a very strong claim at the beginning of the sentence. The statement that young people are an important segment of society is a strong claim and the main argument that should have been backed up by strong reasoning.
The reasoning to back up the claim was out of line for it had no correlation with the main claim/argument of the author. Therefore, the strong claim was not backed up by strong reasoning.
Answer:
he feels as though uncle and Marial had left him their strength. He finds himself walking faster and more boldly.
Explanation:
