Answer:
People
Everywhere
Are
Creating
Equality
Explanation:
does this work? sorry if it doesn't
Two years ago that were a boy name loran, him and his friends went to a forest just to camp and to see the world and the animals that are there, loran fall asleep and his friends went somewhere, loran woke up and didn’t saw anyone, he didn’t know where to go, he was yelling their names, and they answered him back, they said that they left because they saw an scary animal, they get back to their tents and fall asleep again, after few hours of sleeping it was 3am. It was really scary they heard a lot if wolfs out of their tents, they couldn’t go anywhere, so they were just sitting there all quiet, when they didn’t hear any wolfs they ran back home.
In context of her article, by intelligent citizens Liaugminas means the readers who do not just go with what they witness but figure out if it sounds valid and researched.
<u>Explanation:</u>
Sheila Gribben Liaugminas tries to explain the various biased insights of media and news. In her article "How the media twists the news", she argues the need to look deeper into what the news gives to the world and not just believe it.
In context of her article, by intelligent citizens Liaugminas means the readers who do not just go with what they witness but figure out if it sounds valid and researched.
The meaning of this term changes her initial definition of intelligent news consumers and effective in her call to action using this term is she requests every reader and public to be an intelligent citizen and consumers of what the receive from the media, she asks the public to act on false news instead of believing it..
The correct answer here is the third one: Limited omniscient. We know this because a narrator who knows everything about all the characters is all knowing, or omniscient and a narrator whose knowledge is limited to one character, either major or minor, has a limited omniscient point of view.This text is a perfect example of an omniscient limited. I hope this helps
Answer:
A. Pangeans are historically untrustworthy.
Explanation:
The speaker's point of view is most likely that Pangeans are historically untrustworthy. At the beginning of the passage, he states that Pangea has long yearned to possess their resources. That's why he thinks they're likely to attack. Based on the following statements, we can conclude that Pangeans already tried defeating them. He doesn't explicitly state that it was them who attacked (<em>We have never been defeated before </em>- he doesn't say by whom), but based on the context, we can make this conclusion.
The speaker says that his people will defend what is theirs, which means that they will respond to violence by violence. To him, war isn't the last resort for resolving conflict.
Democratic principles are something he obviously treasures (<em>what makes us fair-minded and democratic is our strong national character</em>), and he never says anything about suspending them during wartime.
This is why option A is the correct one.
