<em>An archaeologist studies things that past cultures made and used.</em>
<em>Hope this helps</em>
Answer:
Inductive, weak
Explanation:
An inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning applies knowledge of past experiences and observations to form conclusions. The premise and conclusion goes "if this happened now... this must then happen". This type of reasoning moves from specific to general as opposed to deductive reasoning that moves from general to specific.
The argument in our question is also a fallacy. A fallacy is a faulty logic or weak argument. The argument is a fallacy of faulty generalization, the typical "jumping into conclusion".
Answer:
D. The Himalayan Mountains
Explanation:
<span>1) Presenting a plank on taxes, welfare reform, and veterans issues and deciding how to vote on them
2) Presenting this plank to the party and getting people to vote on it
</span><span>
5) Aking it impossible for a candidate to run if she doesn't agree with every issue on the party platform</span>
To make the reader wonder how baseball became the national sport of the United States
<u>Explanation:</u>
The author ends the paragraph with a question because the author wants the reader to know how a sport became so popular that everyone left their work no matter how important just to watch a pitch in baseball.
Also, the reader wants the readers to find why baseball made millions of people drive crazy that they head out to fields to watch the game. Also, the author is trying to communicate with the reader and creates an interest for the readers on what happens next.
