Answer:
Nope!
Explanation:
As long as you have non-bias evidence it will not. If you wanted, you could also include evidence from "both sides" too.
Answer:
2. Renewable sources are a good energy alternative to rely on.
3. Traffic jams are something many people complain about.
4. Low-energy light bulbs might be a good solution to spend money on.
5. Is ecology something that you care about?
6. What ecological issues are you particularly worried about?
8. Global warming is something we need to work on.
9. What achievement is he famous for?
10. She provided a solution that we were pleased with.
Explanation:
To unscramble the sentences above, we need to understand a couple of things. First, they will all end with a preposition, just like the prompt shows. The purpose of this exercise is for us to practice using expressions that need a preposition to completely convey their meanings, such as "worry about", "rely on", "to be pleased with", etc.
Second, we must read the scrambled sentences looking for the probable topic of each. Since the general theme here concerns the environment, it becomes easier for us to figure out that the topic of each sentence will most likely consist of words related to environmental issues. In most cases, the topic coincides with the subject, which makes it easier to structure the sentence.
Answer: d. All of the above
The choices presented above creates a barrier to listening. These barriers are created by the speaker that is characterized by the very low volume of the speaker's voice, the speaker also speaks too quickly and his/her message may be too complicated for a listener to grasp or understand.
Rhode Island did not send delegates for Constitutional Convention (May 25th - September 17th, 1787).
Delegates who joined the meeting represented: Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia.
Answer:
Find and describe connections between the ideas that are shared.
Explanation:
The question asks you to choose the action that is “most likely to help or improve a COLLABORATIVE discussion about literature.”
Let’s look at the options.
Choice 2: Choose one person to call on people who wish to speak about the story.
• This could foster collaboration, but it could also give one student too much power and in the process, take away the voices of others.
Choice 3: Argue with each person who shares a perspective on the story.
• Arguing brings about hostility rather than collaboration.
Choice 4: Give each person exactly one minute to speak before letting someone else talk.
• This could foster collaboration by giving people equal opportunities to talk, but such rigid guide lines could also limit the freedom and flow of a discussion.
That leaves us with the first choice, which makes the most sense and has no negative side to it.