Answer:
Claim: The winter Olympics should be held every two years so ageing athletes have more chances to compete.
Evidence: A study conducted in 1999 by the organization of Olympic athletes shows that many athletes peak during non-Olympic years and as a result of ageing can no longer compete when the games re-open.
Reasoning: By including older athletes, the Olympics promotes by inclusively and continuity, two useful values of any organization. Up and coming athletes may worry that a team may lose the competitive edge the newer athletes provide, but a more regular Olympics dose not promote...
srry I could not read the rest
D
Explanation:
What gave them the very itchy and very extremely red spots
Answer: The sentence that has a subject-verb agreement error is sentence 3.
Explanation: Rules of subject-verb agreement state that, when "neither...nor" is used in a sentence and both subjects are singular, a singular verb must be used. However, when "neither...nor" is used in a sentence and one subject is singular and the other one is plural, the verb must agree in number with the subject that is nearest to this verb. In that way<u>, sentence 3, which includes "neither...nor", has a subject-verb agreement error because a singular verb was used, even though the subject that is nearest to the verb is plural ("parents")</u>. Therefore, a plural verb ("think") should have been used to give place to subject-verb agreement.
Answer:
The basic cosmological argument merely establishes that a First Cause exists, not that it has the attributes of a theistic god, such as omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.[23] This is why the argument is often expanded to show that at least some of these attributes are necessarily true, for instance in the modern Kalam argument given above.[1]
Explanation:
Secondly, it is argued that the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. David Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori. However, as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent.[22] Opponents of the argument tend to argue that it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.[1]One objection to the argument is that it leaves open the question of why the First Cause is unique in that it does not require any causes. Proponents argue that the First Cause is exempt from having a cause, while opponents argue that this is special pleading or otherwise untrue.[1] Critics often press that arguing for the First Cause’s exemption raises the question of why the First Cause is indeed exempt,[20] whereas defenders maintain that this question has been answered by the various arguments, emphasizing that none of its major forms rests on the premise that everything has a cause.[21]