Hello, the answer is D, metaphor.
For example, "She is a diamond"
Onomatopoeia is an imitation of a sound.
For example, "Pow!" or "Boom!"
Personification is giving nonhuman objects human attributes.
For example, "The branches of the tree danced in the wind"
A simile is a comparison using like or as.
For example, "She is as valuable as a diamond"
Hope this helped. Have a nice day. :)
1. The targeted demographic (students)
2. Popular culture
3. The companies goal/message
B. The relationship between the average numbers of large zebra mussels and blue crabs over time
Answer:
A. "And the novel needs to keep changing if it is to remain novel."
Explanation:
In the article, Hamid seems to prefer TV viewing over reading lengthy novels, this is evident when he said <em>"I now watch a lot of TV.."</em> He goes further to say <em>"Films could be well written, but they were smaller than novels. TV was big, but its writing was clunky..this represents a crisis for the novel."</em>
Then comes Hamid's advice to novelists,<em> "And the novel needs to keep changing if it is to remain novel."</em>
<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>
