Answer:
In fact, the nineteenth-century Western miners’ exquisite cloaks, large hats, and practical boots are excellent examples of high-quality men’s fashion.]
Explanation:
Not sure if its correct
Answer: knowledgeable
Explanation:
I had the same question and the answer was knowledgeable but you didn't give options so our questions might be talking about completely different passages
Answer:
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. ... Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources.
Explanation:
Wikipedia is ideal in these situations because it will allow you to find the information, as well as sources which you can research to confirm that information. In any case, you should not cite Wikipedia itself, but the source provided; you should certainly look up the source yourself before citing it.
Why is Wikipedia a good place to begin?
While the wisdom of the crowd doesn't always rule when it comes to objective, fact-based research and writing (unless you're writing a report on Wookies), Wikipedia offers a good way to get your head around a topic and to start narrowing down your research focus so that you can switch to using more commonly accepted .\
Answer:
This can lead to, if the other person's idea is more popular or the other person themself is, the great thinker being discredited and/or disliked. Such as if someone said a very popular food was poisonous, but someone else said it wasn't, people might believe the latter person's idea, as they don't want the other to be true possibly. It can also possibly have the reverse effect of the person with the other idea being discredited and/or disliked. If the great think is known for being a great thinker, people might then think anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong and possibly even foolish or something. It also may lead to it being harder for people to realize when the great thinker is wrong because they might have already thought of how they must be right and started thinking that the other was clearly wrong because of that, which might dissuade them from realizing they were actually wrong and that the great thinker had made the mistake. This may also apply if both are correct, but people think the great thinker is *more* correct.
This sounds like a great question to answer about the reliability of Nick as a narrator. On one hand, he seems to be a very honest character. But, on the other hand, he will always have an innate bias based on his feeling towards certain characters and events.
