One way to fix that sentence is to switch around the two phrases used; 'My mother and father are both scientists' and 'It must have been my destiny to become interested in biology.'
It must have been my destiny to spark an interest in Biology, as my mother and father are both scientists.
That's a way to fix that sentence used in your question.
Also, 'destiny' was spelled incorrectly.
This sentence may seem run on if you don't place a conjunction between the two phrases, or if the phrases are not switched.
If the sentence is to be used with a conjunction, it may end up like this....
My mother and father are both scientists, so it must have been my destiny to become interested in biology.
Or, you may just use a period, to change the two phrases used into two separate sentences.
Like this;
My mother and father are both scientists. For that reason, it must have been my destiny to become interested in biology.
ALSO, as you can see above, I have added a few words to the last sentence. Those three words, 'For that reason', give closure to the two sentences.
Hope this helped!
Answer:
C. The author created a narrator who is focused on the future rather than the present and places him in a situation where that causes problems.
Explanation:
Essay claim: Requiring <em><u>voters</u></em> to <u><em>present picture</em></u> identification <u><em>reduces</em></u> voter participation.
<em><u>Many</u></em> people <u><em>lack</em></u> photo identification. Requiring <em><u>picture identification to vote would keep those without</u></em> it from voting. Elderly <em><u>people who no longer drive and people </u></em>who <em><u>live </u></em>in<em><u> low-income</u></em> areas often <em><u>lack</u></em> identification. They would be <em><u>unable</u></em> to vote. Mark Abernathy <u><em>argues</em></u>, "Requiring photo ID to vote <em><u>effectively</u></em> eliminates a <em><u>large group</u></em> of American voters. <em><u>However</u></em>, they are denied a basic <em><u>privilege given to all Americans over the age of 18</u></em>. A <em><u>part</u></em> of the population, not the entire population, <em><u>decides</u></em> elections" <em><u>" (page 820 of the article "Photo Identification Disenfranchisement").</u></em> Some <u><em>believe</em></u> this <em><u>isn't </u></em>true. Ria Olberson <em><u>of</u></em> Alabaster University <em><u>says</u></em>, "Few Americans <em><u>lack</u></em> a license. Even <em><u>an</u></em> expired or revoked license <em><u>counts as photo identification.</u></em> The<em><u> idea</u></em> that requiring <em><u>identification disenfranchises some Americans is </u></em>simply <em><u>false</u></em> " (page 101). Just just wrong! <em><u>Many people don't have licenses because they</u></em> don't need or <em><u>desire</u></em> them. Consider <em><u>city dwellers</u></em>. They <em><u>don't need</u></em> licenses: public transportation. <em><u>Many</u></em> of <em><u>these</u></em> people would <em><u>have</u></em> to <em><u>get</u></em> licenses in <em><u>order to participate in a process</u></em> <em><u>that they are entitled </u></em>to<em> </em>as <em><u>U.S.</u></em> citizens.
Answer:
I would say... Maybe... F & H. Sorry if it's incorrect.
