I don't think so but they are living
The correct answer is A. Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Explanation:
In a Post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy the speaker considers one event is the cause of another because one event follows the other in time. This implies the speaker incorrectly assumes one event to be the cause of another without real evidence. This occurs in the example presented because the speaker thinks Jalessa being a President is the cause that the school was broken into. However, there is no evidence Jalessa is the direct cause of this event and this cannot be concluded based on the fact the incident occurred after Jalessa became the class president.
Answer:
HEEFF
Explanation:
This explains the wider implications of the text better than AFOREST or LOD.
<span>C. Patsy skips school to go to the stables </span>
Mark Brainliest please
The discourse on language in education has taken the intelligentsia by storm in the wake of the Single National Curriculum (SNC). The polarisation between various points of view is so intense that a meaningful debate is impossible. It is intriguing why the supporters of English distort some issues beyond recognition. Hence here is another attempt to clarify issues.
First, it must be restated that the discussion is not whether children should learn English or a local language. Those who support the local languages as the medium of instruction have always added ‘and English must be taught as a foreign language’. I have yet to figure out why we are accused of pushing out English from our education system to make our children backwards and incapable of handling technology. It seems to imply that even if we are failing to teach English correctly it is fine so long as we stick to our mantra of English and English alone.
