The sentence contains misplaced modifier.
According to the sentence, the one got hit by the car was Gunther. However, putting "I" as the subject of this sentence means that "I" was the one got hit. ("Having just been hit by a car" and "rushed over..." were done by the same person - "I")
So that, this sentence should be corrected, the following is an example:
<em>"Gunther had just been hit by a car, I rushed over to see if he was breathing."</em>
"When the hero returned to the city after slaying the dragon, the princess whom he had rescued gave him a garland" is the one among the following sentences that <span>most effectively combines the meanings of the lines in question. The correct option among all the options that are given in the question is the third option or option "C".</span>
Answer:
she forcefully STATED her view
Explanation:
there were no answer choices but anything along the lines of that. stated, voiced, expressed, declared, announced...ect.
C is the correct answer. Made of wood.
Answer:
It fails to support its claim with specific, credible evidence and uses a disrespectful tone.
Explanation:
When giving arguments in favor or against a specific subject, they must be supported by reason and logic as well as credible evidence that can be compared with reality. They also need to be coherent with the things you are stating, this has to be done in a respectful tone as you are open to the idea of others comments and counterarguments. You are supposed to show you are right with these arguments, not by insulting or despising others.
In my opinion, this excerpt fails in both. It is not respectful and it's arguments are not strong enough.
He states that there is not proof of who is right or wrong on the debate adressed, he needs to support this with evidence. Who states that?
He the concludes that "no valid judgment can be made for everyone on whether smartphones should be banned from teens." This seems as an opinion based on his own reasoning.
After this, he starts making judgments about the people supporting the restriction, calling them naïve. This is not polite or useful. As I said, this is not based on evidence, he is contradicting himself as he stated in the first lines that there was no evidence of who was rigth or wrong.
The next lines express just his opinions based on his values and thoughts, evidence to support them is never presented.
