The correct answer to this open question is the following.
I suppose science fiction writers use this method to advance their stories because it is a magnificent way to use your imagination and conduct readers to never-before-seen places. Places where only can be accessed via the mind and the imagination. And that is fantastic.
Science fiction writers like French Jules Verne used his knack to take us to distant lands, or to space, or under the ocean, just using science fiction. He was a man before his time. He could predict the future in his novels. Something to admire.
Through the use of science fiction, you can write about otherwise controversial times such as other dimensions, ET's, UFOs, supernatural powers, and more.
I really cannot think of another good way writers might transport through time, as effective as science fiction.
Answer:
don't go into public
Explanation:
you and ur friends are gunna go out to eat but the restaurant will have people dining in. to drastically limit exposure you guys just order through Uber eats and eat via zoom.
Answer:
Pathos
Explanation:
the writer is using emotion to appeal to the audience
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.
