Hi, you've asked an incomplete question. The remaining part of the question reads;
the first paragraph;
<em>I spent my teens and much of my twenties collecting printed rejections. Early on, my mother lost $61.20—a reading fee charged by a so-called agent to look at one of my unpublished stories. No one had told us that agents weren’t supposed to get any money upfront, weren’t supposed to be paid until they sold your work. Then they were to take ten percent of whatever the work earned. Ignorance is expensive. That $61.20 was more money back then than my mother paid for a month’s rent.</em>
The last sentence of the first paragraph (“That . . . month’s rent”) primarily serves to
A. <em>justify an action by invoking an ethical principle</em>
B. clarify a point by defining an ambiguous term
C. show how anecdotal evidence supports a claim
<em>D. provide meaningful context for a revealing statistic</em>
<em>E. demonstrate that a common practice has harmful effect</em>
Answer:
<u><em>D. provide a meaningful context for a revealing statistic</em></u>
Explanation:
By saying, "<em>That $61.20 was more money back then than my mother paid for a month’s rent" </em>the narrator had revealed a very interesting statistic about the value of money back then.
In other words, the context surrounding the statement helps the average reader quickly understand that a month's rent used to be <em>lesser</em> than $61.20; very interesting statistics at that.
Answer:
I believe the answer is Nuclear Fusion
Explanation:
Answer:
Explanation:
Canada middle-class families with children are similar to those in the US that they avoid large urban area, rural area or brownfield site. They live as ex-pats only if they have to live overseas.
So the right answer is a middle-class family with two children in Canada is MOST LIKELY to settle <u>in a suburban area.</u>
