This is your answer:
A man is camping with his wife in Colorado. After the first couple of days in the mountains, they realize they are out of food (not water) and our too deep in the forest to go back to their car. They both sincerely want to continue on the journey so they assume that with the man's weapons they might find some animal to kill and then they would cook it, then eat it. After one whole day of searching for food they cannot find anything to eat. They decide to go back to their car and along the journey they collect small plants and sterilize them with the water they have left in their satchel so they can have at least minimal food. They were able to survive because of their willing to eat uncommon organisms and their courage to travel back to their car with not a lot of food in their bellies.
Hope this helps!
Bb the best we gonna is the way you cannot we gonna was the day I cannot we gonna we had a little bit today I cannot it was gonna was a good day I had to go to see the next one day and I’m sure you cannot we had some time to do it today omg was wi I had to do a little bit of time and was a good time and we gonna we had to do it
This exercise requires an explanatory response or essay identifying how Kenney organizes and structures his speech.
<h3>How do you write an explanatory essay?</h3>
First, one must understand what they are trying to explain. This exercise requires you to understand how speech is organized.
Your response should have:
- An introduction
- A body and
- An Conclusion.
Read through the referenced speech and also identify the purpose of the speech. This should form a good part of your introduction.
Learn more about an explanatory essay at:
brainly.com/question/26984401
and How to organize speech at:
brainly.com/question/3588488
#SPJ1
It looks really good but I think you should put a comma before ( like ) and I suggest to take the ( grave or ) part because it will sound a lot more better
Ad hominem is an attack against the arguer instead of the argument itself in order to cast doubts about arguer's argument.
