Answer:
"Social Media and Community - What the Numbers Really Mean"
According to a recent survey, 37% of Americans use social media as a way to connect with others. However, this article from Forbes fails to mention some important factors. The article talks about how people have found peace in sharing their lives online and how social media has been used as a tool for advocacy for those who thought they were voiceless otherwise. The author of the article is talking more about how social media is used as a tool for people who want to make others feel left out of the conversation. The author compares social media to bubble tea, which is meant to be consumed quickly by someone who needs some refreshment or sustenance after a long day. The author points out that not everyone needs to stay connected or communicate with others as much as they do, but she fails to realize that these people who are using social media for this purpose are doing so because they have a passion for the things that they share and want to make a difference in their community.
(Hope this helps!)
Are you working on the reference list? What style are you writing? As the variant, you can go to the professional writing service online Prime Writings. No intention to promote it or so. You may just check what they can do for you.
Answer:
<h3><u>globalization</u><u> </u><u>is</u><u> </u><u>the</u><u> </u><u>process</u><u> </u><u>of</u><u> </u><u>interaction</u><u> </u><u>and</u><u> </u><u>integration</u><u> </u><u>among</u><u> </u><u>the</u><u> </u><u>people</u><u>,</u><u>companies</u><u>,</u><u>nations</u><u> </u><u>etc</u><u>.</u></h3>
Answer: The field of Parapsychologists.
Explanation:
The type of words used above as well as the tone suggests that the author does not think highly of the field of parapsychologists. Indeed, in calling the field fraudulent, the author is actively looking down on the field.
The author is therefore showing bias against the field because the author includes no positives about the field. The text is singularly garnered at making the reader think lowly of the field as well. The author is therefore biased in their analysis of the field which means they are biased against the field in general.
Plz make this branliest answer!!
