Yes, people have annotated and closely read a nonfiction text, and No, most of the people never attempted a close reading or annotated a nonfiction piece. Whenever they read nonfiction, I've always felt compelled to write about it.
<h3>How the
nonfiction helps the people?</h3>
- People were able to easily discover key information in the text.
- People were able to figure out what the text's main point was.
- People were able to follow the progression of the text's thoughts and arguments.
<h3 /><h3>How the nonfiction hinders the people?</h3>
- People couldn't figure out what the work was about.
- People couldn't figure out what the text's main point was.
- People just had a rudimentary grasp of how the concepts and arguments were produced.
Thus, Yes, people have annotated and closely read a nonfiction text
For more details about nonfiction helps the people, click here:
brainly.com/question/1830999
#SPJ1
Answer: In his lifetime, Ralph Waldo Emerson became the most widely known man of letters in America, establishing himself as a prolific poet, essayist, popular lecturer, and an advocate of social reforms who was nevertheless suspicious of reform and reformers.
Explanation:
It's when someone makes a fast and false conclusion because they only know the general idea of the thing they are concluding, and not all of the facts, if that makes sense. It's kind of like a stereotype, automatically assuming that someone is a certain way just because they participate in a certain sport, for example.
The first one.
Explanation:
In this first one, the author is pulling apart what the evidence means (analysing it).
In the 2nd, it is NOT analyzing a piece of evidence specifically, it's summarizes the point and says it's supported by the evidence. So, not analyzing.
In the 3rd, the author is applying it to the situation and explaining why it's important, which is different from analysis.
In the 4th, the author is offering an example as evidence, not analyzing a piece of evidence.
