<span>C
“Hall sensed that it would tip the balance in favor of the U.S. joining the Allied forces”</span>
He has empathy for the bee and therefore wants to free it
Answer:
Reworking or reshaping level of the revision process.
Explanation:
There are basically three processes involved in the revision process. They include;
1. Rethinking or Reseeing: This is the stage whereby the writer evaluates his content and decides to change certain information he has included because they do not accurately project what he has in mind. What is written is changed.
2. Reworking or reshaping: This is the stage where the writer is not satisfied with how the content was written and would be perceived by the reader. He then decides to adjust it so as to improve the clarity. This is the stage the writer is in, in the above described scenario. He adjusts the content to improve clarity for the reader.
3. Editing and Proofreading: The writer corrects typographical errors at this stage.
This isn’t a proper question
<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>
