As evidence that Fawcett was "a remarkable man," the author shows that he was a very admirable explorer and was part of one of the most important geographical groups in Britain.
This can be seen in the lines:
- "Fawcett [...] as an honored member of Britain's renowned royal geographic society."
- "[...] He'd battle anacondas and electric eels, and how he'd emerge with maps of regions that no one had even came back from."
In this case, we can see that the author used the account of someone who studied Fawcett's life about his great deeds and how he was very good at what he did.
Fawcett was such an extraordinary man that even his disappearance is a curious thing and one that attracts the attention of all who want to know more about him.
In this case, we can say that the author's argument about Fawcett being an incredible man is effective because the author shows evidence to support it.
More information on the use of evidence at the link:
brainly.com/question/37503
Answer:
The phrase adds a specific detail about time that is relevant to the text’s topic.
The phrase helps to introduce the text’s topic by providing a direct object.
Explanation:
Well knowing that people have there own opinions,some people could find it appealing cuz of the fact it seems like a love letter or cuz they find just that intro interresting. but for me its cuz it seems like the person who wrote it really must love their husband so if i were to use an intro like that id do it for the man i love.
Answer:
Summary Of Rethinking The Wild By Christopher Solomon Essay
1530 Words7 Pages
Humanity co-exists with nature in a relationship that periodically shifts between symbiotic and parasitic. We maintain this relationship in order to survive. In exchange, we carefully monitor how our behavior alters the natural environment and affects those living within it. This responsibility is the price we pay for our species’ sentience and dominance. To help fulfill our duty, America established the 1954 Wilderness Act in hopes of becoming passive “guardians” of nature instead of encroaching “gardeners.” However, the Wilderness Act has failed. In his article, “Rethinking the Wild”, Christopher Solomon questions the effectiveness of the law and correctly concludes that, after fifty years of dormancy, mankind must take an active role in environmental protection, the role of the gardener. Though critics may argue that the passivity of the “guardian” should be maintained, realistically, little can be done to preserve the environment when we refuse to do anything. Because mankind has a greater stake in the wilderness than we realize, we must assume a proactive role in protecting the wilderness out of respect for nature and our own ethical standards.
Boundaries and Investments
Assume for the sake of our argument that nature holds no intrinsic value. Why, then, is the wilderness worth protecting? Truthfully, the wilderness can be a valuable indicator of the planet’s overall health, which is not easily gauged in industrialized and populated areas due to human influence.
I think the answer is B, not 100% sure though.
