If you want to make your argument effective do a combination of all four; however, if you must pick one use specific details to refute the opposite side’s views.
Let's look at the answer choices. First, we have "Compare the opposite side's views to something unpleasant" which won't work simply because it comes off as uneducated and childish, like there isn't a valid reason so you are just name-calling. Second, "Include only general details the audience will understand" isn't a good option because you can—and should—explain specific details so that they can be clearly supported. The third option, "Use specific details to refute the opposite side's views" goes along with what I previously said about detailed reason being more effective; saying something is "bad" is much less appealing than saying a specific factor of it is flawed for blankety-blank reason. Being able to rebuttal against the opposing point of view with specific evidence is just as essential to your argument as the reasons you have to support your own views. The fourth option, "<span>Appeal strongly to the emotions of your audience" is a good technique, but alone it can lead the audience to assume that you don't have any real evidence to support your argument, rendering the attention gathered fro emotional appeal rather useless. Considering this, the third option is definitely the best answer.
Answer: </span><span>Use specific details to refute the opposite side's views. </span>
In terms of structure, the poems are very different. The haiku is only three lines long and discusses a single moment in time; “Digging” is much longer, has many stanzas, and jumps between time periods. There are some ways in which the poems are similar, however. For example, the speakers of both poems discuss how their writing is related to and inspired by farming or gardening.
