I got you! Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians mprove their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world. Cause: Italians wanted to improve their knowledge of people and the world.
When you're arguing you want to make your point as objective as possible, for this you have to be impartial so that your proof is strong.
Comparing the opposite side's views to something unpleasant is useless since this kind of comparison holds no proof that your argument is true. <em>Incorrect</em>
If you include only general details the audience will understand, you might not be able to communicate the specific points of your argument, therefore you wouldn't be able to prove it is accurate. <em>Incorrect</em>
To make your argument effective you have to use specific details to refute the opposite side's views. That way you'll present the specific points in which your argument will stand, you will communicate logical and objective ideas about your argument and they will work to prove it. <u><em>Correct</em></u>
If you appeal to emotion, your argument will be subject to possible biases since the way a person or group feels towards something doesn't prove it right or wrong. <em>Incorrect</em>
Here are the answers to the given questions above:
1. <span>Plato’s dialogues, including the Apologia, are classical texts. The answer would be option A.
2. </span>The Socratic method refers to questioning definitions of concepts expressed by people. The answer would be option C.
Hope these answer your questions.
Answer:
D
Explanation:
If the ending is not foreshadowed, readers will be surprised because there were no former hints leading up to it. The reader may feel confused, as the ending will be out of the blue with no prior explanation. The reader may also feel disappointed or let down as there will be nothing connecting the ending to the previous events of the story.
