Your answer should be: "A feminist analysis would focus on how the men discuss Mrs. Ochuba. A historical analysis would focus on whether using a native doctor was considered superstitious at the time and place the story depicts."
Answer: All right, here goes nothing. *cracks knuckles*
To begin with, the article has a weak claim. While it does vaguely introduce their stance on the topic, it poses it as a question and not a statement. Also, this claim is written in the first person, unlike strong claims that are supposed to be written in the third person. As for the "support" section, even the very beginning strays from the original claim, instead saying why <em>they </em>should own a pet instead of why <em>everyone</em> should be allowed to own pets. For example, in the second paragraph, the author cites a story from a friend of a friend. That is not valid evidence. If it was on the news, however, and the author cited that as evidence instead, the article would be much stronger. The author also delves deeper into their own personal life instead of stating facts as they should have. The transition between paragraphs is clunky at best, with the third paragraph pretty much restating the claim instead of simply saying something like "Pets are helpful to our society." And finally, the entire purpose of that last sentence seems to be to wrap up the article in a hasty fashion, without any attention to restating the claim or the facts presented.
Hope this meets the criteria! Good luck!!
1. Our health-care provider tried to give us the best price.
2. She was offered a part-time position because of the efficiency on the job.
Answer:
The theme of the story, “St Lucy's Home for Girls Raised by Wolves”, is to not force one to change who they are. In the story, there are human girls that are born to werewolf parents and raised in the wild. Nuns bring them to St Lucy's, a school for wolf girls, to civilize them.
Explanation:
