the correct answer is the third one
c. Ray Gilmore recorded the only opposing vote, didn't he? :)
O yes because the summary includes options.
The Answer is C
Wrongly accusing others and conviction without evidence
Explanation:
The first story, Rules of the Game by Amy Tan, has a first person point of view, but Tan also allows readers to view the daughter and mother at the same time. Just like other first person stories, the protagonist Waverly Jong is the narrator who tells us the story. As I read through the story, I am immersed into the story, which is one of the strengths of first person point of view. From the story,
It is very obvious. If the story was told using a different point of view, it will be changed drastically. For example, Waverly’s point of view represents the symbolism of “The art of invisible strength”, which means self control. If the story has a different point of view, the meaning of self control will become useless. And in the perspective of characterization, the point of view is also important. Since we see the story through Waverly’s eyes, we know what Waverly judges and thinks about the other characters, and what Waverly thinks about herself. She believes her accomplishment is based on her talent in chess, which leads to the climax rising action of Waverly running away. We see how Waverly was irritated by her mother, and again, if the story is not told by Waverly, we would not be able to understand that she did not mean to hurt her mother with the words of “Why do you have to use me to show off? If you want to show off, then why don’t you learn to play chess?” Or if the story is told in a third person point of view, like the old woman Waverly knocked into in the instance, we probably see a rude and unreasonable young girl who argues with her mother in the middle of a street.
This 'short essay' is basically asking you create a piece of writing, convincing your audience of your point. For example; I firmly believe that every single country should not have nuclear bombs. In general, I'd include:
*Nuclear Bomb Simulator to give an image I how much damage it does. What this does is, people tend to hate destructive behaviours. By showing them how much damage it does, you're appealing to their sense of emotion by conjuring a sense of panic.
*Death counts from previous wars to further reinforce the emotion of panic, sadness, and awareness. Death count for those individuals who demand solid scientific evidence.
In a nutshell, basically, include statistics (supports your argument with logical data that's already proven), history from past events if possible (to appeal to one's emotions), and if possible, choose evidence that's more modernized to further prove your point. Why so? Simply because it proves that the problem still persists, no matter how advanced in technology we are. in this case, nuclear bombs are going to be dangerous, regardless of how "modernized" we all are.
