What is the reporter's motive in article 1?
article 1:
article 2
what is the reporter's motive in article 2?
which term from senator nelson's quote in article 2 is
an example of bias?
valido accused of accepting bribes
unpopular conservative senator raymond valido
(r-louisiana) stands accused of accepting more
than $1 million in campaign donations from the
nosco oil company in exchange for his efforts to
pass a bill. the bill would allow the company to
build a massive oil pipeline that will span the
entire east coast of the us.
senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle are
demanding valido release his campaign finance
reports.
"if valido did accept these contributions from
nosco, he essentially accepted a bribe and is now
fulfilling his part of the bargain," said senator
intro

to me i think class room sitting education is better. i do online school and i have not learned a think haha. when i sit in the classroom i just sit there and kind of pay attention but still i get so far ahead in the class when im doing online i have nothing else better to do but play video games and i sit in school and learn and have friends and just actually learn. when i'm doing online i sit here listing to music and get on and and look up the answers i guess that is my fault for being a cheater. but to be honest i think sitting in the classroom is better.

formal arguments

in written, formal arguments, the best way to build credibility with readers is to provide them with evidence. no matter what your argument might be and which side you agree with, citing strong evidence to back up your claim leaves the opposition with little to argue.

emotional appeal is often used in oral arguments. written arguments, however, rely on four main types of evidence. as you read further, you will see that some types are more credible than others and "hold more water" so to speak.

statistical evidence

the strongest type of evidence in formal writing is statistical evidence. this ranges from true, hard data presented as a percentage or number, to survey-type data. for example, statistical evidence could be:

4 out of 5 experts claim

85% of women in the united

7 members were present

statistical evidence can be proven as fact. you can actually go out and find hard information to prove your particular claim.

testimonial evidence

the use of celebrities as credibility evidence can be considered testimonial in nature. many people look up to celebrities as role models in their lives. good or bad, when a person chooses a life-path that takes them into public light, there will be many others out there who want to emulate the celebrity. these celebrity endorsements provide the second-strongest type of evidence found in formal arguments.

testimonial evidence can also be collected from experts and authorities in a given field. doctors, dentists, lawyers often provide expert testimonials. their authority is not often questions. they are expected to "know their stuff."

anecdotal evidence

when storytelling is involved as evidence, anecdotal evidence is being used. due to its less objective nature, anecdotal evidence is not extremely strong. when coupled with statistical or testimonial evidence, anecdotal evidence can be highly effective in determining credibility or proof.

storytelling, although based on fact, can include quite a bit of opinion, thus making it less objective. usually, eyewitnesses are used as providers of anecdotal evidence. they saw or experienced the phenomenon at hand are telling their version or side of the story.

analogical evidence

when information is scarce about something and little is known, analogical evidence is often used in a formal argument to increase credibility of the proof. if the phenomenon in question is new and little is known about it, analogical evidence that pulls in known factors about a similar phenomenon to show parallels can be an effective way to provide proof.

due to limited knowledge about the phenomenon, in this situation, analogical evidence can be regarded as the weakest type of evidence used in formal arguments. one can only imagine and hope that the comparison-phenomenon is close enough that the results can be applied to the new phenomenon.

in the

all that really matters in a formal argument is whether or not the writer has credible evidence to back up what they want to say or what they are thinking. so often, we hear people say, "prove it! " to one another.

one last little formal arguments not only provide credible evidence to support claims, don't forget that acknowledgment of the opposing point of view in an argument also strengthens the entire product.

the correct answer is a "it describes nora and mrs. linde's relationship". opcions b and d are not related to the content of the passage in any way. option c could be appropiate but it does not fully capture the effect of the dialogue, while option a is quite appropiate, since the dialogue not only exemplifies the relationship between the characters, but it also captures the effect in the excerpt. we get to know that mrs linde bosses around and already knows nora.

hmm, sadly there is no dialogue. there is no place in the story where he is talking to anyone. it's more of just describing what he eats and where he sleeps. you have to become anne frank, give details of where you are, what other folks look like, how the environment is. have a little bit of dialogue tell of what people are specifically saying. anne frank talked about her entire household including the people, the objects, the lighting, the food they ate, and even the smell in the air. there has to be more to your diary entries, the whole story in its current state is only about peter van daan, the food, the sounds, and where he sleeps. also he seems to be writing only once a year yet more than that happened from day to day. for a friend, i can you write it out, if you want.