Ok so basically choose a side on a topic and write reasons and details. If i were you i would choose "Should teens be allowed to play dangerous sports?"
First answer the question. "I believe teens should be allowed to play dangerous sports." or vice versa
then explain why they should or shouldnt by giving facts and some opinions but not all. The facts are going to be your evidence so use words like "research shows, studies show, or things like that. that will also fill out the "reliable source" part
you also have to show some evidence on the other side of the claim. SO if u say that they should, show why they shouldnt
Answer:
Explanation:
Pertaining to the interrogate for question 1.
“The narrator’s purpose in the first stanza is to”:
(3) propose an attitude towards life.
- The remnant answer choices are not considered or disclosed as logical or absurd as the relation between those answer choices, as well as the details stated, do not share any reasonable or observable information.
Pertaining to the interrogate for question 2.
“The words “weights heavier” (line 21) imply that”:
*Line 21 within the poem anecdote is not present, hence I cannot answer that question.
*I hope this helps.
I'd choose this dialogue to revise your sentence:
<span>“Did you hear?” I asked them. “My painting got selected! Exciting, right?” I smiled. “Especially given that I felt so incompetent at the beginning and that the competition was ruthless!”
</span>
It feels like the option that best uses the dialogue to improve this sentence, because the other options are either too informal or just the same sentence as the original one.
I think it means that you are supposed to create a PSA about something you’re passionate about. For example, if you’re passionate about the environment, you might choose to do a PSA about littering.
