Answer: All right, here goes nothing. *cracks knuckles*
To begin with, the article has a weak claim. While it does vaguely introduce their stance on the topic, it poses it as a question and not a statement. Also, this claim is written in the first person, unlike strong claims that are supposed to be written in the third person. As for the "support" section, even the very beginning strays from the original claim, instead saying why <em>they </em>should own a pet instead of why <em>everyone</em> should be allowed to own pets. For example, in the second paragraph, the author cites a story from a friend of a friend. That is not valid evidence. If it was on the news, however, and the author cited that as evidence instead, the article would be much stronger. The author also delves deeper into their own personal life instead of stating facts as they should have. The transition between paragraphs is clunky at best, with the third paragraph pretty much restating the claim instead of simply saying something like "Pets are helpful to our society." And finally, the entire purpose of that last sentence seems to be to wrap up the article in a hasty fashion, without any attention to restating the claim or the facts presented.
Hope this meets the criteria! Good luck!!
These fallacies attempt to persuade people with irrelevant information, appealing to emotions rather than logic. Examples of these fallacies include: Appeal to Authority - also referred to as Argumentum ad Verecundia
Answer:
I think B is the best description of chromosomes because it describes them and gives relevent information about what they do.
Answer:
Explanation:
To make the world a better place for everyone is not a simple task, The majority of you may ask: "Why?". Well, One of the mostbasic reasons is that this world is ihabited by billions and billions of people, and if it's difficult and nearly impossible to find a single topic in which a whole country agrees, imagine finding something that joins the interests of the whole world?
Secondly, accordong to Freudian theory, human beings always have an uncomplete desire. You yourself, maybe you need something in this moment, and when you get it, there will be another object of your desire. Human beings never stop looking for complete happiness, or something that fullfills all of their needs, something they never, ever find. The majority don't even know what they are looking for.
Anyway, in order to make of this world a better place for anyone, from the biologistpoint of view, we humans should start taking care of it a little more. If every single human being starts recycling, or throwing their rubbish in the bin instead of in the street, pollution would gradually decrease until it finally gets to the minimum.
Anothe way of making the world a better placewould be trying to be more tolerant among each other. It's not difficult to stop saying bad comments or sharing destructive opinions towards other people. If every human being could save only 1 negative comment per day, the atmosphere would be a little less harsh for anyone.
