The logical connection is absent. The answer lacks any explanation to the question being made. The main problem is that the interviewer is left with a very incomplete response, one that requires a lot of work from part of the interviewer. In this case in particular, even if there were a connection between reducing rates and unemployment, it seems that the candidate does not really have an answer to the question. That is why the fallacy is the lack of connection or relevance between the question and the answer
Rather than explicitly describe a characters qualities, an author shows the character as he or she moves through the world, allowing the reader to infer the character qualities from his or her behavior!
Depending on a situation, for example if the plot is in Paris and the main character is in disparity. Their actions or their speech would tell us what’s happening
Implicit characterization is when you need to infer what a character is like. This occurs when an author gives you a characters thoughts, actions, interactions, speech, and context
True it is true because it’s true
Answer:
You and I can do it. can we?
Explanation:
Can we is the answer.
Which sentence uses an objective case pronoun as an indirect object?
I sent him an attachment that included photos of the picnic.
The indirect object him identifies to whom the action of the verb <u>sent</u> is performed.
<em>Wrong options:</em>
I e-mailed him yesterday.
(The direct object <em>him</em> is the receiver of action within this sentence: I emailed him).
He wrote back to Bob and I with an answer to our questions.
(I is not an objective case pronoun; it should be "He wrote back to Bob and <u>me</u>...")
So, once again, the answer is the 2nd sentence (I sent him an attachment that included photos of the picnic.)
