It's a use of literary styles and techniques to create factually accurate narritives. I found this on google.
The first one.
Explanation:
In this first one, the author is pulling apart what the evidence means (analysing it).
In the 2nd, it is NOT analyzing a piece of evidence specifically, it's summarizes the point and says it's supported by the evidence. So, not analyzing.
In the 3rd, the author is applying it to the situation and explaining why it's important, which is different from analysis.
In the 4th, the author is offering an example as evidence, not analyzing a piece of evidence.
Answer:
1. France is not as large as Brazil.
2. A river is larger than a stream.
3. Metal is not as flexible as rubber.
4. A sidewalk is less wide than a road.
5. Arithmetic is more difficult than advanced algebra.
6. A hill is not as high as a mountain.
7. Bottled water is more clear and clean than river water.
8. Cold, wet weather is not as pleasant as warm weather.
9. Sitting in an easy chair is more comfortable than sitting in a park bench.
10. Hiking along a path is less dangerous than climbing a mountain peak.
11. Toes are less long than fingers.
12. Toes are not as long as useful as fingers.
13. Fingers are more long and useful than toes.
Explanation:
