Answer:
I believe this is the answer the following case study on the canonized Chinese translation of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Zhang Yousong and Zhang Zhenxian shows how social hierarchies and power structures in Twain’s work have been reversed in the translation so as to construct social ‘others’ as ‘us’ and a socially elevated version of ‘us’ – a ‘better us’
Explanation:
Answer:
OD
Explanation:
OA: A web site could be useful for a quick answer but not a very accurate one. Especially since these people arent certified in food.
OB: A book sounds like a very credible place to look for answers but this book is more about personal experiences in diets and isn't certified in food.
OC: An article sounds like a very credible source but is from a person who studied food related problems, meaning that what they have studied isnt as official as an actual certified worker in food.
OD: The most credible source for Ray to choose would be a book on gluten-free diets by an author who has two degrees in nutrition and works at the University of Rockingham.
Answer:
Find the explanation below.
Explanation:
1. He drew the contrasts between death and rebirth when he explained that the contact which the new generation of children have with nature is dying. He explained that there is a possibility of a rebirth of wonder and joy where man can begin his meaningful interaction with nature.
Evidence from the text:
My sons may yet experience what author Bill McKibben has called "the end of nature," the final sadness of a world where there is no escaping man. But there is another possibility: not the end of nature, but the rebirth of wonder and even joy.
2. He drew a contrast between being broken and healing when he explained that the bond between the young and nature was broke. He also explained that nature did have a therapeutic effect as seen from some studies. Making it a point to heal the bond between the young people and nature would be beneficial to all.
Evidence from the text:
Yet, at the very moment that the bond is breaking between the young and the natural world, a growing body of research links our mental, physical, and spiritual health directly to our association with nature—in positive ways.
Reducing that deficit—healing the broken bond between our young and nature—is in our self-interest, not only because aesthetics or justice demands it, but also because our mental, physical, and spiritual health depends upon it.
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:
