Full question:
1 The first rugs were made as a part of their need.
Read the passage. Look at the underlined section marked number 1. There may be a mistake in the way the sentence is written. If you find a mistake, choose the answer that corrects the mistake. If there is no mistake, choose ‘Correct as is.’
A) Correct as is.
B) The first rugs were made to their need.
C) The first rugs were made instead of their need.
D) The first rugs were made because of their need.
Answer:
A) Correct as is.
Explanation:
The sentence marked number 1 is great of grammatical errors and is correct as it is.The options listed to correct the sentence marked number 1 change the meaning of the first sentence(the one marked number one) and some of the options have grammatical errors and are therefore not alternatives or correct versions of the original sentence.
Answer:
Actually, we can benefit greatly in our personal lives and relationships from exposing ourselves to positive information. Human-interest stories increase trust and hope in humankind. Stories about improved living and health conditions are uplifting and encouraging.
Explanation:
1. Which of the following would most likely appear in a feature article, but not in a news article, about Hurricane Katrina? - 2..a sidebar containing a brief interview with a former New Orleans resident who was displaced by the storm
2. Something that is prevalent happens C. often
The tense is all mixed up, but it looks like present is used most often, so "emitted" should be changed to "emits" and "pulled" should be changed to "pulls." I can't see the entire paragraph so just make sure that's consistent.
You don't need a comma in "running towards us with the fire extinguisher."
"Your mother and me" should be "Your mother and I." For reference try taking our "your mother" - it sounds pretty silly to say "me thinks" unless you're in the 1600s, right? And it should be "think" instead of "thinks."
McCarthyism is nothing more than a witch hunt. A lot of finger pointing and not a lot of proof. Both parties (Democrat & Republican) in the United States use this in todays world. Ill give examples of both and follow up with how it can be beneficial to each party.
Democrats: Accuse other politicians of being "racist" or "bigoted" just from political ideas and from certain members of the base. While it is not fact or true that Republicans are by policy racist, it is a word that is hated by people and has a negative connotation to it, forcing some to keep distance from said person
Republicans: Accuse other politicians of being "muslin lovers" or "muslins" themselves. We saw this for the entire Obama presidency. Congress and some Republican supporters would use the word "muslin" to describe the president in order to give a negative connotation towards Obama. This has some strong effectiveness due to the recent events (September 11th, 2001).
Both parties are trying to stick a negative idea/precedent/description about the opposition in order to sway votes. This tactic is very effective because not only will you sway votes, theres little repercussion in doing so because the people who disagree with you are not going to be swayed, but that voter in the middle who cares about one issue over the other (in this case racism over fear of muslims or vice versa fear of muslims over racism).
Either someone is intelligent enough to know the rhetoric between the two parties and votes by policy (unaffected / no positive or negative response), they don't care about either issue (unaffected / no positive or negative response), or someone is strongly in favor of one or the other (strong positive or negative response).
While there are some attempts that have been made and can be made that would be so egregious that most people have a negative response, but that rarely happens and would be deemed political suicide.
Hope this helps.
