Answer:
Authorial reticence allows the narrator to exaggerate
Explanation:
Authorial reticence can be defined as a term with lack of clear conclusion, description, opinions etc. about an event. More so, It allows the narrator to exaggerate and hence escape the judgement. Many readers abhor authorial reticence due to absence of clear judgement. Their authors are permitted to include fantasies and magics which will make readers concluding things based on their own perspectives. Furthermore, It leaves readers in the state of uncertainty and no clear conclusion is reached.
No, Because in today's society minors are more aggressive. They are observant and thinks rationally about what is happening around them. Most of them say that minors are just busy in front of the television screen, scrolling down on their iPhones in their facebook account or just tweeting around, and just letting their parents be the one to think for them. BUT no. Some of the minors are like that, but not all. They seem not heard socially because the public dictates that they are only minors, so they think about of other interventions for them to be heard, one of which is through the social media.
She was young yet carried herself with great confidence, and her clear eyes locked onto mine and oozed kindness.
This is the best choice because it describes Dr. Perez in a way that would explain why Rachel was no longer anxious about her dental visit. Earlier in the passage, Rachel describes her previous dentist as being nice, which seems to be the quality she liked most. This is a quality that she would value in her new dentist. In the additional sentence, she describes Dr. Perez as oozing kindness. Her reassuring eye contact and confident movements also provide comfort to Rachel.
Shark : fish :: koala : bear
At least I think it is because a shark is a fish so I guess a koala is to bear.
I hope I helped :)
