( I'm sorry I'm assuming) People are trapped in history is the person's good/bad memories and will always remind themselves of things they did in the past, and history is trapped in them is sort of like you're a part of the history and you can't change the fact that you're in it. Again I'm sorry if this is not correct.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although you did not include the name of the article, the link to it, or any further reference, doing some research we can comment on the following.
Nathan Thornburg's position on immigration is the following.
He considers that the United States federal government has to assume a definite posture on the issue of immigration that still affects the country. In his article of 2007 titled "A Case for Amnesty," Thornburg questions the way some politicians have approached the complicated issue of immigration, the consequences for the country, and the affectation of many immigrants.
He cites some examples such as the posture of the late Republican Senator John McCain.
The point of Thornburg is that the Amnesty bill could have positive political consequences for the American government, and somehow alleviate the flux of immigration to the United States.
Nathan Thornburg is a Senior Editor for "Time" magazine, and has published other important articles such as "Dropout Nation."
Answer:
D Community college
Explanation:
Community college is an institution for post-secondary school students who wish to pursue higher education. In the United States, <u>community colleges offer two years of general programs that serve continuance of the education and the ability to see what which major and minor offer. </u>
<u>This is a great option before choosing the path, as students that complete community college can easily transfer to a university to complete the four-year program and earn a bachelor’s degre</u>e. In some of the US states, community college is free, but in general, they are much cheaper than full four-year university programs.
Knowing the function of the parts of speech is not necessary for communicating clearly. False.
<span>Q1: The ability of an ecosystem to recover from damage.
In the text, it says "the resiliency of the reefs". From this we know that resiliency is a trait that the reefs have. In the next sentence, we see the context clues that define resiliency when it states "reefs bounce back-even flourish." When someone or something bounces back it recovers and returns to it's previous state.
Q2: to inform readers about how the coral reefs are being destroyed AND to convince readers that practices that destroy coral reefs must be stopped.
It is a "Check All That Apply" so more than one answer can be chosen. The passage title is "Save the Coral Reefs" and the selection ends with the sentence "More can be done now to help the coral reefs bounce back". These clues tell the reader that the author's purpose is to save the reefs. In order to do this the author needs to first explain how the reefs are being destroyed. Then convince readers to save the reefs by stopping the practices that destroy them.
Q3: "could help save" and "unsubstantiated risks".
It is important to pay attention to the question here. It is asking for phrases that support safety - not necessarily nutrition. A pixie stick is safe to eat, but not nutritious. The phrase "could help save" supports the idea that it is safe because it is being defined as possibly life and eye-saving. "Unsubstantiated risks" also shows safety because it state that any risks have not been proven and are therefore unfounded. Some of the other phrases such as "more vitamin A" and "more nutritious" support the argument that the food is healthier but are not used to specifically explain how safe it is.</span>
