Https://www. liveworksheets. com/3-kd483931ks

ayudenme plis no entiendo nada

4. at the conclusion of frankenstein, robert walton has an encounter with the monster, who arrives after victor frankenstein has died. perhaps surprisingly, the monster mourns his creator and expresses remorse over the fate that victor suffered. the monster pledges to destroy himself and then departs, disappearing as he goes further north. how does the monster’s behavior and attitude in this part of the novel affect the way readers view him? is he sympathetic? is he more hateful because it is only after victor has died that he relents? how does the change in the monster fit with the theme of duality in the novel?

In the space below, write a five-paragraph, 600-800 word persuasive essay arguing whether or not your chosen speech is effective in communicating its message, based on how it uses rhetorical strategies. include a clear thesis statement identifying whether, in your view, the speaker's argument is effective, based on his or her use of rhetorical strategies. explain why or why not. give your audience a sense of closure by providing a clear conclusion. throughout the essay, be sure to: use formal, objective language for an academic audience, connect your ideas using transitions that clearly tie together your ideas, base your argument on evidence from the text of the speech, and provide a clear conclusion about the speech's effectiveness.

In a debate focused specifically on the topic of whether new laws are needed to prevent distracted driving, the following argument is made. which type of special appeal does it demonstrate? “my opponent is correct—distracted driving is very dangerous. many activities—texting, talking on the phone, looking at maps, eating breakfast—all of these contribute to accidents. yes, we have statistics to support that. however, my opponent is totally ignoring the role that improper and inconsistent maintenance of your vehicle can also have in causing accidents! ” a. false analogy b. red herring c. bandwagon d. fallacy of argument from ignorance