Answer:
1. The author's argument is that evolutions in language such as "textspeak" do not ruin our language, rather, they are creative ways of incorporating symbols in technology.
2. The author claims that
a. Changes in language do not demonstrate decay, rather they indicate flexibility.
b. Emoticons are not just faces. They convey feelings.
c. The use of emoticons in language makes ideas to be better clarified. They ease the flow of conversations.
d. A symbol can communicate an entire message.
3. Reasons to support the claims
a. History shows that people have always complained about changes in language but time shows that these changes are not harmful but rather innovations.
b. Emoticons convey feelings of happiness, sadness, or anger during text communications. These symbols aid the flow of communication and clarifies ideas that would otherwise not be understood because the communicators cannot see each other physically.
Explanation:
In the article by Lauren Collister, she argues against the popular belief that emoticons are ruining language. She rather believes that these symbols are innovations that should be embraced by all because they ease the flow of communication. Dating back to A.D 63 when some Latin students began writing the French Language, a scholar tagged the language an "artificial language". Today, this is the language of an entire people.
Innovations in language are to be embraced not rejected.
Writers and speakers use counter claims so that they can counter something if it shows up. If there is an opinion that someone says, that could be counted a claim as long as they use evidence. Then if you disagree, you can use a counterclaim to tell them that you have a different opinion that is backed up by an opinion.
I think it would be A, to appeal to modern day audiences.
Back then women were not as respected and physically capable as men. However women now can do most if not all jobs than men can do. So a hero who doesn’t treat women like they are still incapable may be more appealing than a hero who treats women like children in modern day. (Back then it would have been acceptable or liked)
