Hmm, a strong argument typically includes a statement of one's own opinion, then your opponent's counterclaim, and reasons why the counterclaim is inaccurate or invalid. For instance, Tammy could have started off with a statement about how animal safety benefits the animals, and then address the counterclaim about it being expensive by stating it doesn't just help the animals, but the people as well. I think the answer here is false because Tammy's speech didn't include an argument about how expensive animal safety is. So false. I hope this helps, sorry it's so long.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
The two intervention programs that the government could put into place to encourage tourists, not to litter would be the following.
1.- Advertising campaign in the United States airports. As soon as tourists arrive in the United States, there would be TV screens and signs in every airport, informing that littering is strictly prohibited in the United States.
2.- US embassies abroad. A similar campaign should be implemented in the many US embassies around the world. So when people solicit their visas to enter the United States, they could be informed that there is strict legislation in the US regarding littering.
This way tourist will be informed previous their arrival to the country.
These recommendations will help the illegal dumping situation for tourists in that they will be very aware that there will be serious consequences if they are caught littering.
It was almost like traveling back in time
Accusations and Offensive language are used .
If you were writing a letter to an editor you wouldnt use offensive language !
