The sentence that best corrects the original one is option 3) “Noticing that the patio table had been turned over by the storm, Anton flipped it back on its feet.”
In this option, we make it clear that the doer of the action (flipping back the table) is Anton and in the original sentence is not mentioned.
The first option is incorrect since it says that the storm flipped back the chair instead of Anton.
Option number two is also incorrect since the meaning is not clear, especially the 2nd part of the sentence.
And the last option is also incorrect because it uses the passive voice in both parts of the sentence, when it should be using acting voice in the 2nd part, making emphasis on the doer of the action (Anton) rather than on the action itself.
I say talk about economic policy. Argue for a position you believe in (be it Socialism, Laissez-Faire Capitalism, or whatever). I would start by using a anecdote that described the issue using the negative consequences of embracing the other perspective, immediately tarnishing the person's first impression of the opposite ideology. Then, I would involve logos by saying things like "just think about it, and you'll realize it makes perfect sense" and explaining my position as though it were a formula. Ethos would come into the picture when I mention the opinions of professionals and scholars who I've hand=picked to agree with me on the topic. Pathos has already been used in the form of the beginning anecdote, a "sob story" so to speak.
Hope that I helped!
Redhenbell
Explanation :
It’s the answer
Answer:
Mohan does not do his homework
its a.
Explanation:
it's a. environmental analysts has to make sure that every thing is going up to law in factories and other plants.if he sees that a factory is letting out too much carbon.he will step in
