Why is an apprentice narrator appropriate for describing World War I? The narrator’s growth can contrast naive views with the ha
rsh realities of war. The narrator is able to explain why war is always necessary despite its enormous costs. In his blindness to reality, the narrator represents the majority of war’s proponents. An exemplar narrator would give nothing but wise speeches, which would get boring.
An apprentice narrator could be appropriate for describing World War I mainly because he/she could be an impartial party on this issue.
The fact that this narrator is not inclined to any part, or doesn't have a vast experience, gives he/she the necessary objective point of view to narrate the facts in the most credible way.
He/she could make use of all specific details to support the narration of facts in a very well documented way, assuring therefore a very adjusted issue.
In linguistics, we recognise 4 types of arguments, and two of them are experience, and examples; therefore, in this case, correct answer is: The Narrators growth can contrast naive views with the harsh realities of war.
An argument is a disagreement between two or more people, but it can also be a statement backed by evidence, like your argument that your school doesn't need a dress code.
