I think it’s both, but probably leaning more towards ethos.
1. Pellucidity
Intricate words and syntax are an obstruction to pellucidity and should be evaded. Conceptions should be limpidly distributed between sentences and paragraphs.
Example: Albeit I have never been to the races afore, I was very exhilarated to behold them, yet withal remotely nervous, because of the type of people who go there.
Amended: I’d never been to a horse race. I was exhilarated to go, but withal a little nervous, since I wasn’t sure about the people at the track.
2. Don’t describe each and every one of your own forms of kineticism
Example: As I went in the door, I turned and visually perceived a TV. I looked around and visually perceived posters on the wall.
As I went further in I descried everyone was optically canvassing M*A*S*H.
Ameliorated: I immediately descried the posters on the wall, though everyone else’s ocular perceivers were fixated on a TV playing M*A*S*H.
3. Evade the second-person narrative
A consequential part of the narrative essay is the fact that the inditer experienced the events described.
Example: As you go in the door, you will turn and visually perceive a TV. You look around and visually perceive posters on the wall.
As you go further in you descry everyone is optically canvassing M*A*S*H.
Inditing in the present tense is okay, however.
4. To interest the reader, dynamic word cull is key
Evade sounding too clinical. Utilize the same slang, idiom, and turns of phrase you would utilize in verbalization. Eschew passive constructions.
Example: I am presented an array of unpleasant photos in which many casualties are shown after automobile accidents.
Ameliorated: They showed me a book stuffed with gruesome pictures of people who’d been in car wrecks.
----∫<span>Zєυѕ </span>
Answer:
It depends
Explanation:
It depends on whether the writer enjoyed that song at the time when he/she wrote the lyrics I guess. There needs to be more proof to be sure that it is one, because it is a pretty common saying. I'd say yes or no to be on the safe side no.
<span>He basically wants some information out of him and thus he uses these phrases. He wants to know that if Jordan and nick had conservation, he is not able to ask him directly and trying to find a way to get nick give the information.</span>
Don't contradict yourself, be truthful!
