Answer: All right, here goes nothing. *cracks knuckles*
To begin with, the article has a weak claim. While it does vaguely introduce their stance on the topic, it poses it as a question and not a statement. Also, this claim is written in the first person, unlike strong claims that are supposed to be written in the third person. As for the "support" section, even the very beginning strays from the original claim, instead saying why <em>they </em>should own a pet instead of why <em>everyone</em> should be allowed to own pets. For example, in the second paragraph, the author cites a story from a friend of a friend. That is not valid evidence. If it was on the news, however, and the author cited that as evidence instead, the article would be much stronger. The author also delves deeper into their own personal life instead of stating facts as they should have. The transition between paragraphs is clunky at best, with the third paragraph pretty much restating the claim instead of simply saying something like "Pets are helpful to our society." And finally, the entire purpose of that last sentence seems to be to wrap up the article in a hasty fashion, without any attention to restating the claim or the facts presented.
Hope this meets the criteria! Good luck!!
Answer:
<em>let the young man be free let him be in the party.</em>
Hope this helps :)
Answer:
Yes.
Explanation:
since we are the future, we want to make a change now rather than later, before the problem escalates. this lets us use our constitutional right to <em>peacefully</em> protest, which has indeed worked throughout history.
<span>The pilot initially wanted to save the girl and disobey the law since he left the need to allow her to see her brother one more time. However , the mission he was carrying out would be doomed and the people who needed the medical supplies would die and that would be a great tragedy.</span>
