According to the information in the text, it can be inferred that the sentence that best introduces the text is that jazz music has a rich and lively history that helps shape what it is today (option B).
<h3>What is the text talking about?</h3>
The text is a brief summary of the history of Jazz and how it has evolved over time, standing out as a genre in which improvisation allowed the development of new sounds over time.
Based on the above, it can be inferred that the sentence that best introduces the text is that jazz music has a rich and lively history that helps shape the way it is today (option b) because it includes a general idea of jazz music.
Note: This question is incomplete because there are some information missing. Here is the missing information.
Estefani is writing a paper about the history of jazz music.
Which sentence best introduces a precise claim for this topic?
The music we know today as jazz started over 100 years ago in New Orleans, Louisiana. While jazz has changed a lot since then, the main idea is the same. The musician inust know how to improvise. It takes a lot of practice to be able to do this. When jazz first started it was a blend of blues, ragtime, and marching band music. Musicians, many of whom did not read music very well, played familiar songs for people to enjoy. People listened to music as a daily part of their lives. Songs were played at town events, family picnics and even at funerals. As these songs were played the musicians would improvise by adding extra notes or changing the rhythm. These impromptu changes allowed the music to evolve as more musicians performed it.
a) jazz music have always adapted different songs in order to appeal to their audience
b) jazz music has a rich and baited history that helps shape the way it is today
c) jazz grew out of other musical traditions but hasn't influenc genres along the way
d) jazz music is important to many different people for different reasons
Learn more about jazz in: brainly.com/question/27505438
#SPJ1
Answer:
Twelve years ago, Barack Obama introduced himself to the American public by way of a speech given at the Democratic National Convention, in Boston, in which he declared, “There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America, an Asian America; there’s the United States of America.” Few of us believed this to be true, but most, if not all of us, longed for it to be. We vested this brash optimist with our hope, a resource that was in scarce supply three years after the September 11th terrorist attacks in a country mired in disastrous military conflicts in two nations. The vision he offered—of national reconciliation beyond partisan bounds, of government rooted in respect for the governed and the Constitution itself, of idealism that could actually be realized—became the basis for his Presidential campaign. Twice the United States elected to the Presidency a biracial black man whose ancestry and upbringing stretched to three continents.
At various points that idealism has been severely tested. During his Presidency, we witnessed a partisan divide widen into an impassable trench, and gun violence go unchecked while special interests blocked any regulation. The President was forced to show his birth certificate, which we recognized as the racial profiling of the most powerful man in the world. Obama did not, at least publicly, waver in his contention that Americans were bound together by something greater than what divided them. In July, when he spoke in Dallas after a gunman murdered five police officers, he seemed pained by the weight of this faith, as if stress fractures had appeared in a load-bearing wall.
It is difficult not to see the result of this year’s Presidential election as a refutation of Obama’s creed of common Americanism. And on Wednesday, for the first time in the twelve years that we’ve been watching him, Obama did not seem to believe the words he was speaking to the American public. In the White House Rose Garden, Obama offered his version of a concession speech—an acknowledgement of Donald Trump’s victory. The President attempted gamely to cast Trump’s victory as part of the normal ebb and flow of political fortunes, and as an example of the great American tradition of the peaceful transfer of power. (This was not, it should be recalled, the peaceful transfer of power that most observers were worried about.) He intended, he said, to offer the same courtesy toward Trump that President George W. Bush had offered him, in 2008. Yet that reference only served to highlight the paradox of Obama's Presidency: he now exists in history bracketed by the overmatched forty-third President and the misogynistic racial demagogue who will succeed him as the forty-fifth. During his 2008 campaign, Obama frequently found himself—and without much objection on his part—compared to Abraham Lincoln. He may now share an ambivalent common bond with Lincoln, whose Presidency was bookended by James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson, two lesser lights of American history.
Explanation:
Here's how I see it. For a long time throughout many generations, women and kids didn't have rights. It was always the man of the house who brought home the bacon and controlled the house. Slowly but surely women started to get rights (like voting, being able to do more jobs and generally more things, and even though there is still a wage gap they got payed more over time), but kids didn't start having a voice until, let's say, until 3 generations ago. With advances in technology, kids started to have more of a voice and more of a role in general. A long time ago kids were factory workers as well, which is kinda out of place to put here but I just remembered so the more you know I guess. Anyways, kids started getting more educated, getting more legal rights, and with technology, much more of a voice. Kids are on social media now, child actors (like Millie Bobby Brown) are fighting for women's rights and are helping to fund charities. Kids can create youtube channels, they can create Instagram accounts, they can do anything with technological advancements today. Kids can do basically anything adults can. My mom, who is a baby boomer, talked about the fact that when she was a kid, kids were to be seen, not to be heard. Kids weren't really acknowledged by adults and were often disregarded as idiots until they became legal adults, but now a 13 year-old could have an intellectual conversation about politics with a 50 year old. So, to answer your question, yes, the role of a child has been one of the greatest shifts over time. The way it effects families can be for the better or for worse. I think it's mostly for the better. Kids can speak out now, they can learn more and do more. They have the ability to become an adults as a child, if that makes any sense. Kids are evolving now and will be for forever. I think that because kids have a voice now more than ever, it's a good thing. Kids should be smart and should be heard, and the fact that some kids are able to invent things or challenge adults to trying new things or having intellectual conversations is amazing!!! I hope this helped, sorry that this question is 2 weeks old, brainy just suggested it to me. Good luck with school!
Answer:
He restored the practice of worshiping multiple gods.
Explanation:
