This is actually based from <span>Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Fall of the House of Usher”. And based on this excerpt, what the narrator is doing in this moment is that he is was reminiscing of what had happened in the past. Hope this answers your question. </span>
In the very, very simplest terms, judging the validity of an argument starts centers around this process:
1) Identify the rhetoric (Lines of Argument) from the actual, formal reasons. Separate the persuasive language from the actual claims to truth and fact.
2) Analyze those reasons (claims to truth and fact) by identifying their logic (often in the Implicit Reasons) and evidence.
3) Test and evaluate the logic and evidence; identify logical errors and ask whether the evidence can and has been tested and objectively, repeatedly, factually verified.
Answer:
because violence is the rule of nepal because nepal has a corrupted minister
Q13. The 'pounding feet of the tourists' strongly juxtaposes the 'city's fragile stones', characterising the damage caused by tourists in comparison to the frailer nature of the ancient city of Machu Picchu.
Q14. The author is communicating that an organisation, WMF is trying to develop more policies and campaigns to allow tourists to practice sustainable tourism, with the preservation of sites under threat like Machu Picchu in mind.
Answer:
This concept makes production more efficient, promotes economic growth, and lowers prices of goods and services, making them more affordable especially for lower-income households. Imagine if countries were like chefs, with different specialties. See how trade helps both sides be more productive
Explanation: