Answer:
Explanation:
Dear Paul,
You may be wondering why I was so hard on you, it was because I was you.
My parents died while I was in high school and I was sent to live with my aunt. I skipped school, and spent a lot of my time with a shady crowd, which I ended up dropping out of school so that I could earn money to support myself. It wasn't until years later I realized that I never expected much out of myself. If you're reading this letter then you figured out what I did much sooner than I did.
Yours Truly,
Roger
B. Readability and accuracy are two most important elements for an ideal translation.
Readability refers to the fact that the translation "flows" - it sounds natural and there are no problems reading this text. Accuracy refers to the fact that the words are translated correctly.
Answer: Credit was not given
Explanation:
Plagiarism is when you take a person's work and pass it as your own work even if you took permission from its owner. Yes, even if a person gives you permission to use their work, you must not pass it as your own as this is plagiarism. You must credit the owner for the work.
I am unsure as to what forms of documentation the question speaks of but if that documentation relates to crediting the original owner for the work and it is missing, then the assignment is plagiarized because it is being passed along as your own even though it isn't. Even if this was not intentional, it is still plagiarism.
In the sentence "These days, parents neglect to watch their children's social media use", we find an example of the hasty generalization fallacy.
Hasty generalization does not present enough evidence to support the argument made and, therefore, generalizes a fact. In the sentence above, there is an affirmation that parents do not watch their children's social media use. How can the speaker state this? Who are these parents: all of them? Just a percentage? What about the parents who do watch their kids' use of social media? Do they not count?
As for the other options given, let's take a look at a brief description of what they mean:
Non sequitur is when a conclusion does not follow the evidence presented. It's an absurd conclusion, considering the information given. --> People like watching movies. Movies have violence. Therefore, having some violence happen to people is desirable.
Post hoc is a fallacy in which the speaker assumes there is a connection between events simply because they happened one after the other. That is, if B happened after A, then B happened because of A. --> If it rained after I had an ice cream, then it rained because I had the ice cream.
False analogy happens when the speaker analyzes two different facts under the same point of view and conditions, drawing a conclusion that is far-fetched. --> Monica is from South America. Alice is also from South America. Therefore, Monica and Alice are from the same country.