Answer:
Technology has done more harm than good to humanity
Explanation:
On this topic, everyone is actually entitle to his/her own opinion but as for me, I'm opposing the motion. Basically, I'm not opposing this topic because I'm in science field/department but just that I have more facts to prove that science has really helped our generation.
In my neighborhood, state and country, this has been a controversial issue by many. I have heard many detest the way technology is shaping our world. Many said the way the world was before, is better than now. Adding that it's we human, that we're shortening our lives with so called technology advancement.
Hearing all these most times, always make me feel some how and think that, are scientist to be blamed or credited for the world advancement? Or is there a crime inventing more technologies? I'm just always curious and wondering why some people are not buying this idea of technology advancement.
Some years back, I was in a university being among students having a debate on this particular topic. Some were supporting, while some were opposing. That day, it was a tug of war. I could remember the lecturer coordinating the debate was speechless. She didn't know or figure out who to be called a winner or a loser. She saw the anger each speaker on opposing or supporting are pouring out on the topic.
The debate ended without any winner or loser. Then, I asked myself; is this a mutual facts on supporting or opposing this topic? because i could see the lecturer too didn't point out any winner. But later on, in my findings, researching and observations, I could see science has really done more good than harm and not the vice versa. I added observation because there are some things in our vicinities that we don't need to research about but merely looking at those/that thing(s) you will observe this is/are the work(s) of Science and Technology.
Answer:
you need years of tough training, hard work, and compassion for the job.
Because it was infested with rats and bugs and it was haunted
1. war machines and weapons.
"It had an iron frame... which came from the losing army's war machines."
2. The statue was huge is your best answer choice.
After all, the statue was 110 feet tall, which is quite a feat for a Ancient civilization.
3. Knees.
In the story, the statue snapped at the knees in 226 B.C.E because of an earthquake. This can typically suggest that it is the weakest part, especially as there were large amount of weight on top of it, and the strain of the sea's force as well as the weight from above weakened the area, making it the weakest part.
4. The statue of liberty is "a few feet taller", which suggests, as Helios is 110 feet tall, that the best answer is B) 120 feet. However, historically this is false. The Statue of Liberty is actually 305 feet, but for the sake of the question B) is your best answer.
5. They did not want to offend Helios by rebuilding the statue after it fell. Note: "An Egyptian king offered money to rebuild the statue, but the people of Rhodes said no. The people did not want to offend Helios again."
~
After University there is a period. That gives you a full and complete sentence. Then “she is capitalized.
