Answer:
The commentary which best responds to this text evidence is:
A) This text evidence shows that storytelling in movies is tighter and smaller in scope than novels.
Explanation:
Let's highlight the part that helps us find the answer:
<em>Movies have always seemed to me a much tighter form of storytelling than novels, requiring greater compression, and in that sense </em><em>falling somewhere between the short story and the novel in scale</em><em>.”</em>
<u>This passage makes it very clear that movies are greater in scale than short stories, but smaller than novels. </u>With this information in mind, we can easily work with elimination to find our option.
<u>Option A says precisely that. It states that storytelling in movies is smaller in scope than novels, which is correct. We have already found the answer, but let's take a look at the other options.</u>
Option B says movies are more like a short story than a novel, which is not what the evidence says. Movies fall between the two genres; it is not more similar to one than the other. Option C says storytelling is similar in both movies and television, but that is completely unrelated to the evidence we are supposed to analyze. Finally, option D states movies are larger in scale than novels, which is the opposite of what the evidence supports.
It is a simple sentence because it has one subject and one predicate.
Answer:
no its non-renewable because it takes alot to make itself so it can't be used again
I think the answer may be “it helps the reader understand how precise the dive was”
If an author is trying to tell a story in present tense they will use words such as "Is" rather than "was", or other present tense words.
