Answer: The answer is you can neither be fully supportive of the either. In fact the battle will go on or you may the arguments will perhaps get louder in the years to come.
Explanation: None of the nations wants to back from using a lucrative resources that they chance upon fully knowing the repercussions of climate change and various other damaging havoc that can impact the entire earth.
The greed in humans cannot be killed and perhaps we already are paying a heavy price for it. The conservationists believe the usage of the resources should be done in a responsible manner.
The supply need not be jeopardised for the future generations but no objections in continuing to use them though. Sustainability is the argument that they propound.
The preservationists are purists in the true sense they don't want to disturb mother nature and allow them to flourish in their pristine form and we continue to live in harmony with that.
The intrinsic value of the land and other resources have to retained and gained inspiration for its beauty and serenity. It is the theory that preservationists have stuck too for years.
Each is right in their own way, if we don't use the natural resources we won't be able to function as well as we do.
If we don't preserve some of the natural resources and stick our head into every resource on the surface of the earth, there will be large destruction and extinction of flora and fauna.
Hence it would be right to say, that we need to rethink what we are going to do because in the next few years what we do will determine our future and there is no going back then.
Answer:
B). Many servers say they would not like hourly pay because with tipping they can influence how much they make.
Explanation:
A counterargument that aims to refute, oppose, or neglect the previous/given claim made by the author. The given claim asserts that tipping must be stopped and the workers should rather be paid an increased hourly wage and the claim which counters it most adequately would be the servers' opinion in favor of tipping which allows them to make more money per hour. Thus, it refutes the given claim and hence, <u>option B</u> is the correct answer. The other claims(options A and D) either assert negative comments on tipping which justifies the claim instead of refuting it while option C asserts the reason of the claim but does not deny it.
In my view Hedda Gabbler is the most morally ambiguous between the two. Allow me to compare the two characters in order to clarify my views. Hedda Gabbler is an older Norwegian housewife of upper-*Middle class who chose to marry because she was starting to grow older. Her motivations are not always clear and sometimes it seems as though she suffers some kind of mental illness. Also, the etymology of her name is quite revelatory, her name comes from " the Germanic name Hadewig, derived from the Germanic elements hadu "battle, combat" and wig "war" (https://www.behindthename.com/name/hedwig). Hedda is obviously in conflict with the patriarchal society of her time and she aims to not only be in command of her own destiny but also to control her husband. She kills herself in order to deny the power of a man over her. Even in her death she is defiant. Daisy Miller on the other hand is a very young adult and rich American who loves Europe and its ways. She is naive and innocent and her behavior is not as vindictive as the behavior of Hedda Gabbler. Daisy is in opposition to the conservative and patriarchal views of society more because of her exposition ot European cultures and less due to a conscious realization of her condition. Her name is the name of a flower and her death is also symbolic as she dies from malaria. Flowers die during winter and Daisy's winter is the disease that kills her. She is more a victim than a proto-feminist.
Lucy really shouldn’t ride her school on the clean floor.
Answer:
The collapse of the World trade center APEX
Explanation:
