Answer:
C) Theatre classes promote a love of performance and an appreciation of the arts.
Explanation:
hope its right
Answer: The answer is you can neither be fully supportive of the either. In fact the battle will go on or you may the arguments will perhaps get louder in the years to come.
Explanation: None of the nations wants to back from using a lucrative resources that they chance upon fully knowing the repercussions of climate change and various other damaging havoc that can impact the entire earth.
The greed in humans cannot be killed and perhaps we already are paying a heavy price for it. The conservationists believe the usage of the resources should be done in a responsible manner.
The supply need not be jeopardised for the future generations but no objections in continuing to use them though. Sustainability is the argument that they propound.
The preservationists are purists in the true sense they don't want to disturb mother nature and allow them to flourish in their pristine form and we continue to live in harmony with that.
The intrinsic value of the land and other resources have to retained and gained inspiration for its beauty and serenity. It is the theory that preservationists have stuck too for years.
Each is right in their own way, if we don't use the natural resources we won't be able to function as well as we do.
If we don't preserve some of the natural resources and stick our head into every resource on the surface of the earth, there will be large destruction and extinction of flora and fauna.
Hence it would be right to say, that we need to rethink what we are going to do because in the next few years what we do will determine our future and there is no going back then.
It is a 10 stanza poem<span> with each stanza being a quitrents
</span>
The poem<span> has a very fluid structure.
</span>
Even though it is long poem<span> at the same time it is very precise.
</span>
hope that helps
Answer:
The answer is most likely C: ploughing
Explanation:
To "turn up the earth of (an area of land) with a plow, especially before sowing." Because your question mentioned the term plow, the answer would probably be ploughing.
Answer:
<u>Claim:</u> the voting age should be lowered to 16 years old.
<u>Opposing claim:</u> some people are against it because they believe that 16 years olds can not make informed decisions and are going to vote according to whim or how their parents tell them to vote.
<u>Counterclaim:</u> lowering the voting age is more likely to produce a better-informed body of voters since school can help them with courses for such thing.
Explanation:
The claim in this text is that the voting age should be lowered since young people deserve to have a say in the direction of the country. Some of the reasons supporting this claim are that 16-year-olds are mature enough for this decision in contrast with teenagers of previous generations as shown in studies. Also, they are more informed and competent than adults.
The opposing claim states that 16 years olds are not well informed, and they will vote according to what their parents tell them to vote or without consciousness. There are no investigations in the article that support the opposing claim.
The counterclaim says that as 16-year-olds are still in school, the education system can develop instruction courses to teach them about the candidates. As they have the right to vote, students will be motivated to learn about this topic.
