Answer:
D). No revision is necessary.
Explanation:
As per the question, the underlined phrase 'popular monuments, trekking through the thousands of exhibits' does not require a revision as it is both grammatically and syntactically appropriate and <u>successfully accomplishes the meaning</u> of the paragraph. The underlined phrases <u>follows the parallel structure adequately(through the use of nouns in the list of items(monuments, exhibits) in a parallel frame).</u> Therefore, it does not require any kind of revision and hence, <u>option D</u> is the correct answer.
engages the reader
teaches the reader something useful (a new way of thinking about the essay in question)
helps the reader to see the bigger picture that the summarized essay is a part of, and
helps you as the writer to gain a deeper understanding of the issues and arguments of the essay being summarized.
<span>It depends on the type of narrator, an unreliable narrator usually opens a story with evidence that the narrator is unreliable by admitting mental illness, making an obviously wrong statement or if the narrator describes himself as a character.</span>
Susan B. Anthony argues that, although legally not allowed to vote, she is entitled to participate in the country's running because of her condition of citizen. She is successful in arguing this point, as she provides strong evidence for her position. For example, she describes how the Constitution makes all people equal, and does not distinguish between men and women. She also describes how women display all the conditions of "humanity" one could expect, and therefore, do not deserve to be treated like inferior beings by the law.
by praising the efficiency of modern-day Internet research doesn't relate to anything regarding "Choreographers of Matter, Life, and Intelligence" when it comes to argumentation. Comparing scientific knowledge to grains of sand on a beach is poetic, but it is no argument either. Proving names of modern scientists and their contributions also shows nothing but the scientists and their contributions themselves. It doesn't work as proof for <em>"an impending scientific revolution".</em>
What Michio Kaku does, as the good scientist that he is, is to show evidence. And he does so "by providing quantitative proof of recent scientific progress"
