B. The First Amendment protects the students' right to wear the armbands; they weren't disruptive, and the school allowed others to wear controversial symbols.
What do you mean? Im confused
Answer:
Since I don't know the context your putting the word in I'll give you all of the meanings
1: the state or fact of being completely destroyed or obliterated.
2: the act of annihilating something or the state of being annihilated
Have a good day! <3
Answer:
transiton is when something is transitioned into the next and chronlocial order is puting steps in order by numbers
Explanation:
Answer:
It fails to support its claim with specific, credible evidence and uses a disrespectful tone.
Explanation:
When giving arguments in favor or against a specific subject, they must be supported by reason and logic as well as credible evidence that can be compared with reality. They also need to be coherent with the things you are stating, this has to be done in a respectful tone as you are open to the idea of others comments and counterarguments. You are supposed to show you are right with these arguments, not by insulting or despising others.
In my opinion, this excerpt fails in both. It is not respectful and it's arguments are not strong enough.
He states that there is not proof of who is right or wrong on the debate adressed, he needs to support this with evidence. Who states that?
He the concludes that "no valid judgment can be made for everyone on whether smartphones should be banned from teens." This seems as an opinion based on his own reasoning.
After this, he starts making judgments about the people supporting the restriction, calling them naïve. This is not polite or useful. As I said, this is not based on evidence, he is contradicting himself as he stated in the first lines that there was no evidence of who was rigth or wrong.
The next lines express just his opinions based on his values and thoughts, evidence to support them is never presented.
