Answer:
I think it's C
Explanation:
A - The claim doesn't address the why
But the thesis statement does address the why. It answers why:
WHY is there images happy children used for the "Healthy Choices" menu?
BECAUSE the restaurant chain is trying to draw attention away from its role in depleting the rain forest.
B - The student didn't use analysis to reach the claim
The students did analyze the image
C - The student didn't address the "so what?" question
The student does not give a follow up reasoning to why this matters. The student only tells us that the restaurant is trying to draw attention away from it's role in depleting the rain forest. The student doesn't tell us: Why should we care? You may think this is common sense, of course we care about the rain forest! But the thesis does not tell us this.
D - The claim isn't reasoned
They tell us the claim, and reasoning in this sentence: "...features images of happy children playing in neatly manicured parks because the restaurant chain is trying to draw attention away from its role in depleting the rain forest."
C makes the most sense as your answer, although my second guess would be D, english can be tricky.
Answer:
Unstructured paragraph
Explanation:
As both points (description of dogs and instruments) aren't properly separated. When the point was finalized ("in shreds"), another paragraph should have been started, skipping a line. Both points in the same paragraph simply don't make sense with each other.
Answer:
D. The author wants readers to consider the purpose of family conflicts.
