John Ruskin in his essay "Work," claims that doctors value curing the sick more than money, and offers the following reason in s
upport of his claim. [Doctors] in the whole, desire to cure the sick; and-if they are good doctors, and the choice were fairly put to them- would rather cure their patient and lose their fee than kill him and get it. Which best evaluates the support Ruskin offers for his claim?
A. it is not logical; the author ignores other possibilities-that the patient is cured and the doctor still gets his fee, for example.
B. it is not logical; the aurthor himself is not a doctor, so he does not have the expertise necessary to qualify his opinion.
C. it is logical; most people don't want to become doctors just for the sake I money
Answer: A. it is not logical; the author ignores other possibilities-that the patient is cured and the doctor still gets his fee, for example.
The justification that Ruskin gives for his argument is not a very strong one. He states that doctors would rather lose the fee they are supposed to be paid rather than kill their patient. This is probably true, but it is overly simplistic. It ignores several other possibilities, for example, the possibility of lower fees, the possibility of the patient not dying, but being uncomfortable for longer, or the possibility of changing jobs if the pay is low.
Honey provides nutrients. Sugar does not. Honey is not usually cheaper than sugar. It is also not consistent in taste or sugar. The color and taste will depend on the "batch" that the bees provide.
American writing of the mid-twentieth century vary from American writing of the nineteenth century covers an expansive scope of subjects from various givers.
I hope the answer will help you, feel free to ask more questions in brainly.
