In order to have a successful group presentation, a certain degree of decorum is required. Our English classes over the years have worked out the following rules of etiquette.
Speak quietly.
Take turns talking.
Talk one person at a time.
Refrain from bringing up non-topic subjects.
Elect a leader to moderate the discussion.
Show positive body language.
Disagree kindly, with a calm tone and non-aggressive words. People should avoid interupting, disrespectful manners, speaking loudly, talking over that person. Some ways are to talk in a respectful way and agree with the person speaking and listen and stay focused. Hope this helped a lot because I took time a lot of time on it and can u Mark me the brainliest plz and thank uIn order to have a successful group presentation, a certain degree of decorum is required. Our English classes over the years have worked out the following rules of etiquette.
Speak quietly.
Take turns talking.
Talk one person at a time.
Refrain from bringing up non-topic subjects.
Elect a leader to moderate the discussion.
Show positive body language.
Disagree kindly, with a calm tone and non-aggressive words.
Okay so, connotation is what kind of feeling the word gives off. So, when you hear someone glared at someone, what do you picture in your mind? Probably someone staring at someone fiercely or in an angry way, right? That's the connotation. When you hear someone gulped something down, you probably picture them drinking it like it's the last drink they're ever going to get. This is the connotation. So, glared gives an intense or angry feeling and gulped gives a quick and desperate feeling. Hope this helps!
Well lots of business people show fake love but try their hardest to hide it so to prevent themselves from showing their true colors they avoid talking on the phone with new colleaugs.
The correct answer is B because a semi-colon is the best way to join the two sentences since they are both independent.
Hope this helps :)
The argument is that the original US Constitution did not intend for African slaves to be “citizens” of the United States. It is historically false since as dissenter justices Curtis and McLean stated, five of the original 13 states had a sizable minority of free black men who were citizens that could also vote in federal and state elections. Now that being established, the correct answer should be “hasty generalization” since the argument pretends that all citizens, at the time of the ratification of the constitution were white and that only these "all white" citizens were able to vote which is historically false. It could not be a genetic fallacy since the historical precedent invalidates the claim that the intended meaning of the word “citizens” only applied to white Americans. It could not be an <em>ad populum</em> fallacy since not all Americans agreed with such contention, and finally, it could not be a case of begging the claim since they do provide a finding that in their view supports their erroneous conclusion, so it is not circular logic.
