1. Does it have a clear, concise thesis in the introductory paragraph? If yes, what is the thesis statement of the reviewer? 2. Is the summary of the book brief yet thoughtfully explained? In what paragraph did she summarize the book? 3. Is the thesis well-supported with specific examples and details from the book? 4. Does It conclude with a powerful statement that reaffirms the reviewer's thesis in an interesting way? 5. Does the review persuade readers to read or not read the book based on the reviewer's thesis, support, and critical analysis of the book? Why do you think so?​

answer: to inform

explanation: the red death is an exciting passage, but also in some ways scary, so it is not to amuse. the red death is far in the past, so it is not to warn.

the examples that saki used to represent satire through situational irony are options two (2) and five (5) inasmuch as the wolf thought that looking for a girl in the bushes could be as easy as hunting little pigs at the park, but it took him so much time to find the girl if it had not been not for a silly mistake. also, bertha would have survived to the wolf's hunt if she had not won those medals for goodness, which at the end they were what got her killed by making noise, so winning medals of goodness was not so good achievement, after all.

the original because it was the first to be created which means it is most likely to be tried the hardest. meaning the actors tried their hardest to make it right because shakespeare was so famous.

hope this : )

many battles and wars (such as the one at gettysburg), are commemorated by statues or monuments, with some areas preserved as monuments and national parks. do you think this contradicts the message of "grass"? in at least 200 words, explain your thinking and cite evidence from the poem to support your opinion.