Answer:
A
Explanation:
Statement A expresses the support for children voting and countering that would be a hate for children
Reviewing of your notes should be your primary concern, then refer to subtle differences?
Answer:
Below are six strategies on how the government can ensure the dignity of victims of domestic violence.
Explanation:
- The children should be protected from any victimization whenever such a scenario arises .
- Victims are allowed to acquire a domestic abuse protection order as first as possible to enable service of justice .
- The victims order is perused upon breaching of the domestic abuse protection order.
- Low volume of disclosure of information about the victim is upheld.
- The victim is protected against futher harm in the case of sere damage and fatalities.
- The affenders should be aprehended as soon as possible.
Answer:
<em>C. How on Earth, Jenny thought, could the concert have already started when she had left an hour early?</em>
Explanation:
This is the answer because, it says that "Jenny thought" and if it was using a 1st person point of view it would simply say "I thought". And it also says that when "she" had left an hour early. If it was a 1st person point of view it would also simply say "I". And it couldn't be option A, because it said "we" when the sentence (if it was trying to be in third person) should've used "they".
It can't have been option B, because it says, "in my experience" and if you were writing it in first person it would have been "in their experience", or "in (name)'s experience".
It also couldn't have been option D. Simply because it says, "As for me" and uses "I" instead of they, she, he, or even their name.
To make it short, option A, B, and D, do not have the correct wording to be a third-person sentence.
So, in conclusion, the only third-person sentence is option C.
And that's my answer.
I would say that the best example of a hyperbole is <span>C. "Supposing that one thousand families in this city, would be constant customers for infants flesh . . . I compute that Dublin would take off annually about twenty thousand carcasses..." This is a gross exaggeration of the whole situation: not only would the nation be relieved of the great financial (and presumably moral) burden, but Dublin won't have to worry about 20 thousand carcasses that it now has to deal with. Infants won't die from malnutrition or disease; they will be eaten, thus improving sanitary conditions in Dublin.
</span>