Iojgtigiutfuhjlaweyudfiguivgtrj;kgh7647834yghcdvguhu7tyhg4t6ui5y747ycterjgui4otgywughjubhliwhygtuihwt848hvghjonbytol5;jvgeuibtg45olh4tuibjcvptm;mpeoiunriq; h78gtu;ivnyu569pvy6nju8nyhp h7yhu6tyii3uhjoG&^ETgdlghbyu5t4hnl4,tkojuihr5ihtinht5uiujbviut5hj5l6bvhyjy5ubviCkd e;rjngtuiebvhpyi;6 5iojhyo5 mjuio jm;l76kioh;psejgnis'[8yijkym854['ejlhuqilhlgl/3jm
\<span />
The logical connection is absent. The answer lacks any explanation to the question being made. The main problem is that the interviewer is left with a very incomplete response, one that requires a lot of work from part of the interviewer. In this case in particular, even if there were a connection between reducing rates and unemployment, it seems that the candidate does not really have an answer to the question. That is why the fallacy is the lack of connection or relevance between the question and the answer
1 because Tanya is the noun, ran and jumped are types of verbs and is a conjunction and quickly is an adverb
I would think you would use repetition
