I believe D would be the best fit answer
Answer:
first person dialog shows us the reader/narrator's thoughts and feelings.
Explanation:
I'm not sure if this is correct but I hope this helps :)
- cherry
Because the U.S.A is ran by big money corporations and big Pharma. Also you have to work a 9-5 to eat
Duplicity means deceitful so kinda like double-sided or a liar <span />
<span>Q1: The ability of an ecosystem to recover from damage.
In the text, it says "the resiliency of the reefs". From this we know that resiliency is a trait that the reefs have. In the next sentence, we see the context clues that define resiliency when it states "reefs bounce back-even flourish." When someone or something bounces back it recovers and returns to it's previous state.
Q2: to inform readers about how the coral reefs are being destroyed AND to convince readers that practices that destroy coral reefs must be stopped.
It is a "Check All That Apply" so more than one answer can be chosen. The passage title is "Save the Coral Reefs" and the selection ends with the sentence "More can be done now to help the coral reefs bounce back". These clues tell the reader that the author's purpose is to save the reefs. In order to do this the author needs to first explain how the reefs are being destroyed. Then convince readers to save the reefs by stopping the practices that destroy them.
Q3: "could help save" and "unsubstantiated risks".
It is important to pay attention to the question here. It is asking for phrases that support safety - not necessarily nutrition. A pixie stick is safe to eat, but not nutritious. The phrase "could help save" supports the idea that it is safe because it is being defined as possibly life and eye-saving. "Unsubstantiated risks" also shows safety because it state that any risks have not been proven and are therefore unfounded. Some of the other phrases such as "more vitamin A" and "more nutritious" support the argument that the food is healthier but are not used to specifically explain how safe it is.</span>
