Ani analyses how "DeLuca's haphazard patchwork of reasoning and evidence leaves the reader wondering whether he believes his own claim". According to Ani he quotes not only supporters of the Nobel price committee but also detractors. He includes a sampling of Dylan's lyrics and leaves them to speak for themselves.
The evidence (quotes) from the article that best supports Ani's evaluation are:
1. "And it’s a good thing [his lyrics] have been published, because if you’ve gone to see the famously sneering and syllable-garbling Dylan play live in recent years, you probably couldn’t understand a word he was singing."
We could interpret this quote as contradictory, it is not necessarily for or against Dylan's Nobel Price. You could say he is confusing his readers, he seems to be against the sung lyrics and for the published ones.
2. "On one end of Dylan's songwriting spectrum is the vengeful, resolute, and timeless 'Masters Of War' . . . . It’s high dudgeon at its finest: ‘Let me ask you one question: Is your money that good? / Will it buy you forgiveness? Do you think that it could?"
Ani also says that he does a sampling of the lyrics and allows them to speak for themselves. This excerpt shows part of a lyric from the song "Masters of War". He is not necessarily saying its a "good" or "bad" lyric, he describes it as: "vengeful, resolute, and timeless" the reader must decide about its quality or if it is the kind of work that deserves a Nobel Price.
<span>The type of error in this sentence is dangling construction. The phrase by calling every hour is a dangling modifier because it doesn't clearly state what word it describes. The way it is written, the phrase is modifying the word my mother, whereas it should refer to Jamie, because he was the one who is calling, and not the mother.</span>
<span>I believe the answer is B. hope this helped :)</span>
Answer:
Looking back in a previous perspective
Explanation:
