Answer:
C. Next
Explanation:
Because it is explaining a series of events that are taking place
Answer:
The statement that most accurately paraphrases the lines is:
A. What intelligent person does not know that riches disappear in the end?
Explanation:
When we paraphrase, we reword the ideas expressed by someone. We do not change the ideas, nor do we summarize. We say the exact same thing, but with different words. Let's take a look at what is being said here:
<em>What knowing man knows not the ghostly,
</em>
<em>Waste-like end of worldly wealth</em>
The lines above are questioning something. They are asking, maybe in rhetorical way, what intelligent man does not know about how material wealth disappears in the end. The adjective "knowing" is the same as "knowledgeable" or "intelligent". And "waste-like end" means the wealth does not really value much. It disappears ("ghostly", like everything else.
With that in mind, we can easily see that letter A is the one conveying all those ideas:
A. What intelligent person does not know that riches disappear in the end?
Answer:
Because Dred Scott and his family were born in the United States, they are citizens with all the rights granted by the Constitution.
Explanation:
According to a different source, this is the passage that the question refers to:
<em>"It will be observed, that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word "citizen” is used in the Constitution of the United States. . . . . . . The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States."</em>
In this passage, the opinion of the author is that Dred Scott cannot be considered an American citizen because he is the descendant of slaves. The author argues that slaves were not considered as "citizens" when the Constitution was written, and therefore, their children cannot be citizens either. However, a counterclaim to this statement would be the argument that Dred Scott and his family should be considered citizens because they were born in the United States, and therefore, deserve all the rights that citizenship grants them.
The correct answer from each drop-down menu are the following ones:
The article "The Melting Arctic" attempst to win over public opinion by making use of persuasive techniques. One such technique is the use of <u>scientific data ,</u> which relies on proofs, graphs, and charts. The article also relies on <u>expert opinion,</u> which involves the endorsement of an idea or opinion by a renowned professional in that particular field.
In contrast, the NOAA video uses visuals of animals to appeal to the viewer's <u>emotions.</u> It makes <u>passionate</u> claims about the worsening Arctic conditions and the adverse effects they have on animal life.
The linking word "in contrast" indicates that what is about to be introduced should be the opposite to whas has been said. Consequently, as the first paragraph talks about scientific data, the second one should appeal to the opposite of that, that is, emotions and beliefs. "Passionate" is the only adjective in the examples that has a positive connotation that can be put together with the first option ("emotions").
