Why do writers often strive to write using more active-voice verbs and fewer passive-voice verbs? A. The passive voice is usuall
y more emphatic. B. The active voice is more emphatic and usually makes it easier for readers to understand who is performing the action of a sentence. C. The active voice often puts the actor in a phrase after the verb. D. The active voice emphasizes the receiver of the action.
B. The active voice is more emphatic and usually makes it easier for readers to understand who is performing the action of a sentence.
Explanation:
Most author advice writers not to use the passive voice excessively. While this can be very useful in certain situations, it is better to use the active voice predominantly. This is because the active voice has several advantages over the passive voice. The active voice is more emphatic, which gives the reader a feeling of action. Moreover, the active voice places the subject at the beginning of the sentence performing the action. This makes it easier for the reader to understand who is performing the action of the sentence.
Journalists are likely to appeal to the emotions anger and sadness. An example of this is the Maine, where journalists wrote about dying children, and it sparked controversy and protest. They do this to get more buyers.
I believe this to be false as of the fact that a paradox would be like this "<span>If "this sentence is false" and you agree it is true then the statement would be false but that would make it true" and so on.
