Answer:
- The texts use a descriptive language.
- Both texts make extensive use of adjectives
- Both texts explain an event related to illegal immigration.
Explanation:
An informative text is one whose main objective is to teach and inform people about a certain subject. These texts use an efficient descriptive language, capable of showing and describing in detail essential information for the understanding of a specific subject. To increase readers' understanding of this subject, informative texts have a wide use of adjectives, making the explanation clearer and more direct.
Two examples of informative text are the texts "the path to paper son" and "louie share kim paper son", which thoroughly explain events related to illegal Chinese immigration in america.
Answer:
I think that children should be educated on how to act properly around people and in public.
I hope this is at least some what helpful because I don't have anything in school about child development so yeah.
Explanation:
Answer:
When Thoreau perceives nature, he sees an inexhaustible source of wisdom, beauty, and spiritual nourishment. He regards it with great respect and awe while also having with it an intimate familiarity and comfort.
Explanation:
thats my answer dude
The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument. My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of our self-conception and that commitment to it requires the rejection of official dogma. But how is that admittedly dogmatic belief different from any other dogma, such as the one inferring that freedom of expression stops at the border of the flag?
The crucial distinction is that the commitment to freedom of conscience and expression states the simplest and least self-contradictory principle that seems to capture our aspirations. Any other principle is hopelessly at odds with our commitment to freedom of conscience. The controversy surrounding the flag-burning case makes the case well.
The controversy will rage precisely because burning the flag is such a powerful form of communication. Were it not, who would care? Thus were we to embrace a prohibiton on such communication, we would be saying that the 1st Amendment protects expression only when no one is offended. That would mean that this aspect of the 1st Amendment would be of virtually no consequence. It would protect a person only when no protection was needed. Thus, we do have one official dogma-each American may think and express anything he wants. The exception is expression that involves the risk of injury to others and the destruction of someone else`s property. Neither was present in this case.
B: L'antagoniste s'oppose au protagoniste.
