Answer:
The literary purpose of conflict is to create tension in the story, making readers more interested
Explanation:
I believe it's false but I'm not 100% sure.
Answer:
B). "He found that children and adults who have read stories their whole lives were more likely to correctly identify the feelings and thoughts of others than those who do not read regularly."
C). "Trying to understand these characters exercises the same mental muscle that helps us understand people in the real world."
Explanation:
The above two evidence factually support and substantiate the claim that 'people who read stories are better at communicating and understanding the feelings of others.'
The first evidence i.e. option B states that <u>the research revealed 'the children or adults who have been reading stories constantly their whole lives are able to recognize the thoughts or feelings of others more accurately' while the second evidence i.e. option C asserts logically that 'in attempt to understand the characters of stories, the same mental muscle is required for understanding people in real life.'</u>
Thus, these two pieces of evidence not only support but substantiates how reading comprehends our understanding of thoughts, opinions, or feelings of others. Hence, <u>options B and C</u> are the correct answers.
Answer:
It fails to support its claim with specific, credible evidence and uses a disrespectful tone.
Explanation:
When giving arguments in favor or against a specific subject, they must be supported by reason and logic as well as credible evidence that can be compared with reality. They also need to be coherent with the things you are stating, this has to be done in a respectful tone as you are open to the idea of others comments and counterarguments. You are supposed to show you are right with these arguments, not by insulting or despising others.
In my opinion, this excerpt fails in both. It is not respectful and it's arguments are not strong enough.
He states that there is not proof of who is right or wrong on the debate adressed, he needs to support this with evidence. Who states that?
He the concludes that "no valid judgment can be made for everyone on whether smartphones should be banned from teens." This seems as an opinion based on his own reasoning.
After this, he starts making judgments about the people supporting the restriction, calling them naïve. This is not polite or useful. As I said, this is not based on evidence, he is contradicting himself as he stated in the first lines that there was no evidence of who was rigth or wrong.
The next lines express just his opinions based on his values and thoughts, evidence to support them is never presented.
I prefer (the words explains how the weather differs in the mountains)
