Answer:
Airplane crash.
Explanation:
Billy knows the airplane will crash, but he says nothing. The passengers are entertained by a barbershop quartet. The group sings lewd, racist songs to entertain Billy's father-in-law. When the plane crashes into Sugarbush Mountain, Vermont, everyone is killed except Billy and the copilot.
C. Not only the muffler but also the spark plugs need to be replaced. ☺
<span> don't think either are desirable alone or if the question is to an extreme where if one were extremely beautiful, they would also be extremely idiotic, or extremely smart but extremely ugly. </span><span>Smart is also a very broad adjective. People can have collective knowledge of just about anything. If I choose beauty, would I lack common sense or rationality? or would I just learn at a slower rate? If I choose smarts, would I just contain information without the understanding or ability to use and apply it? Knowledge without wisdom and understanding is useless.</span>
<span>Q1: The ability of an ecosystem to recover from damage.
In the text, it says "the resiliency of the reefs". From this we know that resiliency is a trait that the reefs have. In the next sentence, we see the context clues that define resiliency when it states "reefs bounce back-even flourish." When someone or something bounces back it recovers and returns to it's previous state.
Q2: to inform readers about how the coral reefs are being destroyed AND to convince readers that practices that destroy coral reefs must be stopped.
It is a "Check All That Apply" so more than one answer can be chosen. The passage title is "Save the Coral Reefs" and the selection ends with the sentence "More can be done now to help the coral reefs bounce back". These clues tell the reader that the author's purpose is to save the reefs. In order to do this the author needs to first explain how the reefs are being destroyed. Then convince readers to save the reefs by stopping the practices that destroy them.
Q3: "could help save" and "unsubstantiated risks".
It is important to pay attention to the question here. It is asking for phrases that support safety - not necessarily nutrition. A pixie stick is safe to eat, but not nutritious. The phrase "could help save" supports the idea that it is safe because it is being defined as possibly life and eye-saving. "Unsubstantiated risks" also shows safety because it state that any risks have not been proven and are therefore unfounded. Some of the other phrases such as "more vitamin A" and "more nutritious" support the argument that the food is healthier but are not used to specifically explain how safe it is.</span>