While I cannot tell what is bolded, I can try to help.
A subtle distinction is a nuance.
A preference could be an inclination.
To condemn someone is like denouncing them.
Old fashioned could be quaint.
The answers to these questions are:
1. In the first paragraph
a. He wants to convince readers that Buddhism is worth studying.
(This is explained when the author states that: No one can come into contact with the best that Buddhism offers ).
2. The passage implies that the author believes:
a) Adherents of the two religions can learn important things from one another.
(The clue to make this decision is when the author states: Buddhism in China undoubtedly includes among its adherents many high-minded, devout, and earnest souls who live an idealistic life. Christianity ought to make a strong appeal to such minds)
3. These arguments are related to: d. The book may be scholarly, but it is more affordable than most. (it is expressed in the first lines when the author states that A missionary no less than a professional student of Buddhism ...)
4. the intended audience of both the book and the book review
d. They are scholars
5. The author opinion is
c. It is better than the volumes written by other historians. Because of the writer experience.
In "Attack the Water," Mirikitani uses concrete language to create vivid images of the human effects of war.
Concrete language appeals to the senses. If a word is concrete, you will know which of the five senses it appeals to.
Concrete language provides the readers a clear understanding of what the writer is writing about, whether it is a place, event, person, or other topic, by giving precise details and specific identifying information. Without concrete language, writing may be uninteresting, unclear or vague.
I think it would be A and B because that's all I remember people doing for him in the book
