Answer:
An article from last week's The New York Times about H5N1 research
Explanation:
The given question refers to the following passage from When Birds Get the Flu written by John DiConsiglio:
<em>In 2005, a study began testing a possible bird flu vaccine on 450 people. The vaccine uses a type of bird flu that was found in Southeast Asia in 2004. Some of the early results are promising. But as of spring 2007, there is still no vaccine available for H5N1.</em>
The researcher would most likely consult an article from last week's The New York Times about H5N1 research. News articles should be objective, which means that they shouldn't reveal the journalist's opinions, feelings, beliefs, or assumptions about what they're writing about. When writing articles about illnesses, reputable news sources rely on properly conducted research. This is why we could say that an article relying on research would be the best option.
A student's research paper wouldn't be a good source because students often don't know how to choose good sources themselves. This results in factually incorrect research papers.
Wiki pages can be edited by anyone, which is why they should be used with caution. Statements made by survivors of an illness are not a credible source.
Medical companies can be considered a credible source, but an advertisement wouldn't be a very useful source.
This is why the second option is the correct one.
"The Tell-Tale Heart" by Edgar Allen Poe is a brilliant story with the theme of "even if you don't tell anyone when you commit a crime, your guilty mind will tear you apart". Near the end of the story, the narrator begins hearing the sound of the dead man's heart beating. This causes the narrator to go crazy enough to confess to the murder to the cops. The narration is very interesting. The story begins with the narrator claiming that he is not crazy. This immediately causes the readers to feel unsettled. Over the course of the story, as the narrator accounts his completely unjustified hatred for the old man with the strange eye, the readers come to realize that the narrator is crazy. <span />
Answer:
Black and White world is much easier to control
Explanation:
As the Giver tells Jonas, in order to gain control of certain things such as the weather, for example—the community had to let go of others. And one of the things it got rid of was color
Agatha feels she has to run away to avoid marriage because she doesn't have a choice. She is not allowed to choose who she marries. This shows that in Ancient Greek culture marriages were arranged for the women. They were not given a choice to marry for love. Also, this shows that marriage is something that is expected once a person reaches a certain age.
Answer:
Twelve years ago, Barack Obama introduced himself to the American public by way of a speech given at the Democratic National Convention, in Boston, in which he declared, “There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America, an Asian America; there’s the United States of America.” Few of us believed this to be true, but most, if not all of us, longed for it to be. We vested this brash optimist with our hope, a resource that was in scarce supply three years after the September 11th terrorist attacks in a country mired in disastrous military conflicts in two nations. The vision he offered—of national reconciliation beyond partisan bounds, of government rooted in respect for the governed and the Constitution itself, of idealism that could actually be realized—became the basis for his Presidential campaign. Twice the United States elected to the Presidency a biracial black man whose ancestry and upbringing stretched to three continents.
At various points that idealism has been severely tested. During his Presidency, we witnessed a partisan divide widen into an impassable trench, and gun violence go unchecked while special interests blocked any regulation. The President was forced to show his birth certificate, which we recognized as the racial profiling of the most powerful man in the world. Obama did not, at least publicly, waver in his contention that Americans were bound together by something greater than what divided them. In July, when he spoke in Dallas after a gunman murdered five police officers, he seemed pained by the weight of this faith, as if stress fractures had appeared in a load-bearing wall.
It is difficult not to see the result of this year’s Presidential election as a refutation of Obama’s creed of common Americanism. And on Wednesday, for the first time in the twelve years that we’ve been watching him, Obama did not seem to believe the words he was speaking to the American public. In the White House Rose Garden, Obama offered his version of a concession speech—an acknowledgement of Donald Trump’s victory. The President attempted gamely to cast Trump’s victory as part of the normal ebb and flow of political fortunes, and as an example of the great American tradition of the peaceful transfer of power. (This was not, it should be recalled, the peaceful transfer of power that most observers were worried about.) He intended, he said, to offer the same courtesy toward Trump that President George W. Bush had offered him, in 2008. Yet that reference only served to highlight the paradox of Obama's Presidency: he now exists in history bracketed by the overmatched forty-third President and the misogynistic racial demagogue who will succeed him as the forty-fifth. During his 2008 campaign, Obama frequently found himself—and without much objection on his part—compared to Abraham Lincoln. He may now share an ambivalent common bond with Lincoln, whose Presidency was bookended by James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson, two lesser lights of American history.
Explanation:
