Answer: The correct answer for this question is A. "policy" and "provision".
Explanation: Because, the excerpt talks about how the two tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages. Also because, Congress has given pleasure to announce that the benevolent policy of the government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation.
Incomplete question. I referred to a similar situation.
Answer:
<u>D. a central character whose trustworthiness the reader is invited to doubt</u>
<u>Explanation:</u>
We can make such a conclusion because <em>the narrator</em> in the passage isn't speaking from the point of view who knows about the community's history and practices. But is open to doubts from his readers.
Chugged is the main word that should give it away. It is kind of exaggerating the car going up the mountain. I assume it would be a hyperbole.
Hope I helped!
The option that best reflects the technique the author uses to support her purpose on each excerpt is number 2) “The first excerpt uses facts and statistics, and the second excerpt is told as a story.” In the 1st excerpt the author uses credible sources and statistics to show a reality of refugees in Central America and their reasons for asking for asylum. In except 2 on the other hand, the author narrates a story in the 3er person to illustrate violence, drug and social context of a boy.
Option 1 is incorrect since no narrative skills (1st excerpt) nor quotations are used (2nd excerpt).
Option 3 is also incorrect since text 1 focuses on statistics, not on emotions. And text 2 does not use long explanations.
And option 4 is wrong since no strong words are used in text 1 and the second text is told in the 3rd person point of view instead of first person.
