<span>During a conflict one can
either accept responsibility or not (depending, or course, on whether the
conflict is resulting from a fault of one’s own). If responsibility is accepted, the
communication that ensues is honest and can be constructive resulting in an
understanding that can generally be achieved when both sides are fully
listening to each other and trying to understand the opposite perspective. If responsibility is denied, what usually
happens is that “walls” go up and little listening takes place and, because instead
of listening one is generally trying to decide what to say next in order to
defend himself or herself, an understanding (with regard to effective
communicating) cannot be achieved. </span>
<span>The answer in this question is D He should add logos, with evidence to support his ideas and link them together. The best rhetorical appeal for javed to add is logos with evidence to support his ideas and link them together.</span>
Answer:
Sarcasm indeed can be confusing.
Explanation:
Sarcasm indeed can be confusing to some extent. Sarcasm can be understood as "indirect criticism", what you say manifest exactly the oposite of what you really mean with the comment.
Sarcasm cannot be prevented, it is a very "human" activity due to the high symbolism, and complexities of human interaction, sarcasm is expected to exist in one way or another.
Yes, the continuing comments in the U.S about fake news may have something to do with the country's growingly "autistic" impatience with sarcasm and criticism.
D. It creates a feeling of wonder with a touch of disappointment.
