Answer:
The speaker of the poem is a slave on the ship. I know this because of the use of the word "us" which implies that the speaker of the poem is on the ship as well. Another line from the poem that tells me this is when it says, "where we lay for weeks and months." This line uses the word "we" which leaves the same effect as the word "us". The speaker is using these words to show us that they along with other are trapped on the ship in horrible conditions.
Explanation:
i want my 20 bucks for the 2 answers i gave you lol (there I put more sentences)
Answer is D and it's the word and
Answer:
i don't understand what you have typed dear .
Answer:
Onomatopoeia
Explanation:
In order to answer this question, you need to know the definition to every answer choice.
- Hyperbole- an exaggeration
- Simile- a comparison of two unlike things using the words "like" or "as"
- Metaphor- a comparison of two unlike things
- Onomatopoeia- a word that is a sound
In this case, "trill" is a sound-word, so onomatopoeia is the answer.
<em>Hope this helps! :-)</em>
<span>Q1: The ability of an ecosystem to recover from damage.
In the text, it says "the resiliency of the reefs". From this we know that resiliency is a trait that the reefs have. In the next sentence, we see the context clues that define resiliency when it states "reefs bounce back-even flourish." When someone or something bounces back it recovers and returns to it's previous state.
Q2: to inform readers about how the coral reefs are being destroyed AND to convince readers that practices that destroy coral reefs must be stopped.
It is a "Check All That Apply" so more than one answer can be chosen. The passage title is "Save the Coral Reefs" and the selection ends with the sentence "More can be done now to help the coral reefs bounce back". These clues tell the reader that the author's purpose is to save the reefs. In order to do this the author needs to first explain how the reefs are being destroyed. Then convince readers to save the reefs by stopping the practices that destroy them.
Q3: "could help save" and "unsubstantiated risks".
It is important to pay attention to the question here. It is asking for phrases that support safety - not necessarily nutrition. A pixie stick is safe to eat, but not nutritious. The phrase "could help save" supports the idea that it is safe because it is being defined as possibly life and eye-saving. "Unsubstantiated risks" also shows safety because it state that any risks have not been proven and are therefore unfounded. Some of the other phrases such as "more vitamin A" and "more nutritious" support the argument that the food is healthier but are not used to specifically explain how safe it is.</span>
