Answer:
It just plain and simple. It's not special, and It doesn't really state an argument.
Explanation:
Explanation:
- <u>I</u><u> </u><u>have</u><u> </u><u>not</u><u> </u><u>finished</u><u> </u><u>school</u><u> </u><u>yet</u><u>.</u><u> </u>
- <u>I</u><u> </u><u>just</u><u> </u><u>had</u><u> </u><u>lunch</u><u>.</u><u> </u>
- <u>I</u><u> </u><u>already</u><u> </u><u>went</u><u> </u><u>on holiday</u><u> </u><u>this</u><u> </u><u>year</u><u>.</u><u> </u>
- <u>I</u><u> </u><u>have</u><u> </u><u>never</u><u> </u><u>broken</u><u> </u><u>an</u><u> </u><u>arm</u><u> </u><u>or</u><u> </u><u>a</u><u> </u><u>leg</u>
- <u>I</u><u> </u><u>haven't</u><u> </u><u>been</u><u> </u><u>to</u><u> </u><u>the</u><u> </u><u>dentist</u><u> </u><u>this</u><u> </u><u>year</u><u>.</u><u> </u>
- <u>I</u><u> </u><u>haven't</u><u> </u><u>done</u><u> </u><u>anything</u><u> </u><u>exciting</u><u> </u><u>this</u><u> </u><u>week</u><u>.</u><u> </u>
- <u>I never</u><u> </u><u>met</u><u> </u><u>anyone</u><u> </u><u>famous</u><u>.</u><u> </u>
- <u>I</u><u> </u><u>haven't</u><u> </u><u>traveled</u><u> </u><u>on</u><u> </u><u>a</u><u> </u><u>plane</u><u> </u><u>this</u><u> </u><u>year</u>
- <u>I</u><u> </u><u>didn't</u><u> </u><u>do</u><u> </u><u>any</u><u> </u><u>sport</u><u> </u><u>this</u><u> </u><u>week</u><u>.</u><u> </u>
- <u>I</u><u> </u><u>never</u><u> </u><u>stole</u><u> </u><u>anything</u><u>.</u><u> </u>
I hope my answers helped you and I'd really appreciate it if you mark my answer the brainliest :D
Answer:
by removing the commentary that the professor is most likely involved in the gambling ring.
Explanation:
The given excerpt highlights more about Professor Shuman. His involvement in gambling has been more focused rather than on the activity and the ills of the event. In this way, the real issue of the gambling process gets blurred. In order to make the report more objective, the commentary focusing on the professor being involved in the gambling needs to be removed.