Lol I Probably Wouldn't Say Anything , I Would Just Run !
Answer: The answer is you can neither be fully supportive of the either. In fact the battle will go on or you may the arguments will perhaps get louder in the years to come.
Explanation: None of the nations wants to back from using a lucrative resources that they chance upon fully knowing the repercussions of climate change and various other damaging havoc that can impact the entire earth.
The greed in humans cannot be killed and perhaps we already are paying a heavy price for it. The conservationists believe the usage of the resources should be done in a responsible manner.
The supply need not be jeopardised for the future generations but no objections in continuing to use them though. Sustainability is the argument that they propound.
The preservationists are purists in the true sense they don't want to disturb mother nature and allow them to flourish in their pristine form and we continue to live in harmony with that.
The intrinsic value of the land and other resources have to retained and gained inspiration for its beauty and serenity. It is the theory that preservationists have stuck too for years.
Each is right in their own way, if we don't use the natural resources we won't be able to function as well as we do.
If we don't preserve some of the natural resources and stick our head into every resource on the surface of the earth, there will be large destruction and extinction of flora and fauna.
Hence it would be right to say, that we need to rethink what we are going to do because in the next few years what we do will determine our future and there is no going back then.
Start with a good intro sentence like “To sum it up” or “You put it in a nutshell”. Then restate your claim from the intro paragraph
1. Puppy = Direct Object
2. Alaskan Husky = Predicate Nominative
3. Her = Indirect Object
4. White = Predicate Adjective
Explanation:
B: president-parliamentary
