Answer:
I'll try to make it as simple as possible so
Explanation:
The play starts with three witches that predict and tell Macbeth he will soon become king of Scotland. He tells his wife who encourages him to kill the king because of what the witches said. He does and therefore becomes the new king, given the two sons of the king flee, scared that they will also be killed, the country: Donalbain to Ireland and Malcolm to England. With the power Macbeth acquires he is filled with paranoia so he kills more people. Meanwhile, Lady Macbeth becomes ill because of the guilt eventually dying. In the end a war erupts to overthrow Macbeth, resulting in his death Malcolm is crowned as the new king of Scotland.
1.Is the author's claim objective? [Topic and Position]
2.From what perspective did the author write the text? [Style]
3.Is the information arranged according to the content, by the author'sargument or by the needs of the audience? [Organization]
4.Which of the references elicits further discussion? [Research/Sources]
5.Where is the text found? [Audience]
6.Does the text mean to persuade? [Purpose/Context]
7.Are the sources credible? [Proof/Evidence]
8.Which of the evidence carries the more weight? [Proof/Evidence]
9.How is the information arranged in the text ? [Organization]
10.What can you infer from the writer's choice of words? [Style]
Answer:
D). The passage fails to make a debatable claim.
Explanation:
The key weakness of the given passage is that 'it fails to establish a debatable claim.' A claim is characterized as debatable when the readers could reasonably argue on different opinions regarding it but here the 'claim regarding the presence of gothic elements' in Hawthorne's 'Scarlett Letter' and Herman Melville's 'Moby-D' is already agreed upon and accepted as a fact. Thus, <u>there remains no point in persuading the readers' to believe in it by comparing the two</u>. Another weakness of this passage is that the evidence presented here fails to support the claim. Thus, <u>option D</u> is the correct answer.
Answer: Historical institutionalism is the hardest of the three streams to define because it includes so many different scholars and so many different methodological approaches. It is based on the assumption that institutional rules, constraints, and the responses to them over the long term guide the behaviour of political actors during the policy-making process. Historical institutionalism mixes the quantitative analysis of the rational choice stream with the idea- and culture-based thought of the sociological stream. It includes an eclectic group of scholars with a wide variety of research agendas.
Hope this helps you and is correct!!
