Answer:
To be/ Used to be sentence used the passive voice for the main verb.
Explanation:
<em><u>The sentence that uses the passive voice for the main verb is: When we can pick our reading, mythology is most often</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>used</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>to</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>be</u></em><em><u> chosen in my</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>5th</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>grade</u></em><em><u> class. When a sentence is written in the passive voice, the subject becomes the receiver of the action.</u></em>
I think this is a sentence
Ani analyses how "DeLuca's haphazard patchwork of reasoning and evidence leaves the reader wondering whether he believes his own claim". According to Ani he quotes not only supporters of the Nobel price committee but also detractors. He includes a sampling of Dylan's lyrics and leaves them to speak for themselves.
The evidence (quotes) from the article that best supports Ani's evaluation are:
1. "And it’s a good thing [his lyrics] have been published, because if you’ve gone to see the famously sneering and syllable-garbling Dylan play live in recent years, you probably couldn’t understand a word he was singing."
We could interpret this quote as contradictory, it is not necessarily for or against Dylan's Nobel Price. You could say he is confusing his readers, he seems to be against the sung lyrics and for the published ones.
2. "On one end of Dylan's songwriting spectrum is the vengeful, resolute, and timeless 'Masters Of War' . . . . It’s high dudgeon at its finest: ‘Let me ask you one question: Is your money that good? / Will it buy you forgiveness? Do you think that it could?"
Ani also says that he does a sampling of the lyrics and allows them to speak for themselves. This excerpt shows part of a lyric from the song "Masters of War". He is not necessarily saying its a "good" or "bad" lyric, he describes it as: "vengeful, resolute, and timeless" the reader must decide about its quality or if it is the kind of work that deserves a Nobel Price.
There are multiple ways of comparing and contrasting structures that each have different implications and dangers.
1. The back-and-forth method, in which every other sentence compares and contrasts. ie:
P1- theme
-p1 Book A is blah, whereas Book B is blah.
P2- theme
-p2 Book A is blah.... you get the point,
The danger of this method is sounding too redundant, although it does a good job of focusing on the themes.
2. The separate, mixed theme method, in which an entire paragraph is dedicated to each subject, but the themes are thus mixed up within those paragraphs. This method is less redundant but runs the risk of losing clarity of theme.
3. The compare vs. contrast method. This one is fairly straightforward: A paragraph comparing, a paragraph contrasting, and one of synthesis at the end. The pros: It's playing it safe, and it'll work. The cons: It's boring.
Combinations of these 3 methods work as well, it all depends on your personal writing style and the subjects you're comparing.
Good luck
the answer would have to be D.
