<span>based ont he story, i think initially, archie feels that the soccer try out was really important because all of his classmates and his father were really exited about it , even though deep down Archie wasn't really interested in it, but he decided to do it anyway. In the end, he realized that it's okay not to do something that he's not interested in</span>
Answer:
Hercule Poirot returns home after an agreeable luncheon to find an angry woman waiting to berate him outside his front door. Her name is Sylvia Rule, and she demands to know why Poirot has accused her of the murder of Barnabas Pandy, a man she has neither heard of nor ever met.. She is furious to be so accused, and deeply shocked. Poirot is equally shocked, because he too has never heard of any Barnabas Pandy, and he certainly did not send the letter in question. He cannot convince Sylvia Rule of his innocence, however, and she marches away in a rage.Shaken, Poirot goes inside, only to find that he has a visitor waiting for him a man called John McCrodden who also claims also to have received a letter from Poirot that morning, accusing him of the murder of Barnabas Pandy.
Answer
remember to be happy
Explanation:
░░░░░░░░░▄▀▀▀░░░░░░░▀▄░░░░░░░
░░░░░░░▄▀░░░░░░░░░░░░▀▄░░░░░░
░░░░░░▄▀░░░░░░░░░░▄▀▀▄▀▄░░░░░
░░░░▄▀░░░░░░░░░░▄▀░░██▄▀▄░░░░
░░░▄▀░░▄▀▀▀▄░░░░█░░░▀▀░█▀▄░░░
░░░█░░█▄░░░░█░░░▀▄░░░░░▐░█░░░
░░▐▌░░█▀░░░▄▀░░░░░▀▄▄▄▄▀░░█░░
░░▐▌░░█░░░▄▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░░
░░▐▌░░░▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐▌░
░░▐▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄░░░░░░▐▌░
░░▐▌░░░░░░░░░▄░░░░░█░░░░░░▐▌░
░░░█░░░░░░░░░▀█▄░░▄█░░░░░░▐▌░
░░░▐▌░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀▀░░░░░░░▐▌░
Answer: because it draws a conclusion based on the evidence presented throughout the text
Explanation:
The reason for the author including this information at the end of the text instead of at the beginning is because it draws a conclusion based on the evidence presented throughout the text.
Since the evidences were presented throughout the text, the conclusion gives a conclusion that follows the evidences provided.
Answer + Explanation:
As the society grows more and more health conscious, stronger voices to ban smoking in all public areas begin to emerge. Banning public has been used as a mean for government to discourage smoking and also to improve city image. It is almost impossible to achieve consensus on this issue as it creates great inconvenience for the smokers. However, I believe smoking should be banned in public places and my reasons are as follow.
Looking at the <em>health aspect</em>, smoking should be banned in public places because it is not only a health hazard for the smoker, it creates more harm to the others. Cigarette is a known carcinogen that has been associated with increased rates of lung cancer and heart disease. However, the hazard does not end there, second-hand smoke has been proven to create more detrimental effects on health on both the smokers and the people around them. This is especially harmful for those with weaker immune systems such as children and elderly.
Looking at the <em>sociological aspect</em>, smoking should be banned in public places because smoking is a personal choice. One’s personal enjoyment should not be at the expense of others’ health. When a person smokes in indoor public areas such as restaurants and shopping centres, pollutants continue to circulate the premise and affecting the health of everyone within the building. It is unfair for the non-smokers to be forced to share the health risks of the smokers.
To sum up, public places are shared by all, smokers and non-smokers, old and young, and should be made friendly to all. <u>Negative effects of smoking go beyond the smoker himself, creating health problems of the public.</u> While some choose to accept the side effects of smoking, risks of smoking should not be forced upon others. Therefore, in my humble opinions, smoking should be banned in public places.