Answer:
by showing how Scipio was too lenient and his army rebelled
Explanation: hope it helps!
If you look into it there are more creepy similarities between them :)
Of the opening sentences that were presented here that strongly engages the reader and provides context to them would be the second one which is "We could have had a worse weekend, but it's awfully hard to beat Bigfoot and bugs."
The first and third one were just not good enough because it exposes the rest of the context to the reader and lets them have the idea of what you are talking about which usually leads to the readers not choosing to continue to read, thus taking out the reader's engagement but still provides context. The last one is better than the first and third, but it spilled the beans when it mentioned the particulars as to what made the weekend bad to worse. The answer is just right. It has the impact that would hook the reader to know more about your weekend and why is Bigfoot and bugs together in your statement. The rain wasn't mentioned which would be ideal to make the story telling take a turn to much worse which would spike up the interest of the reader.
The correct answer is False
Explanation:
Primary sources always reflect the perspective of those who lived or witnessed a specific event; for example, letters written by a soldier in combat about the first world war are considered as a primary source. Therefore, a primary source is a first-hand account, not an interpreted source.
On the other hand, secondary and tertiary sources are those created by others using primary sources or secondary sources, this means they show the interpretation of others, and due to this, information might be inaccurate. This implies secondary and tertiary sources are those that had been interpreted, and therefore the statement is false because primary sources had not been interpreted; also, these are preferred by researches due to this reason.
