Category: Writing

can someone please help me! I need some guidance. Thanks in advance for your kindness!
1. The following question has two parts. Answer Part A first, and then Part B.
Part A How is “The Thrill of the Chase” most clearly similar to a work of fiction?
a. It takes place a long time ago in an unspecified place.
b. It includes made-up characters that are improbable but entertaining.
c. It contains rich description and imagery to draw readers into events. C is the correct answer for this one I answered it correctly
d. It follows a format in which the writer asks questions and the subject gives answers.
Part B: Which passage from the article is the best example of the answer to Part A?
a. The place was filled with more than 5,000 pieces of museum-quality Southwestern art and artifacts, from Sitting Bull’s pipe and an 18th-century painted buffalo skin to early Indian pottery and rare Plains Indian medicine bonnets. Lauren immediately fell in love with a Crow Indian hat covered in white ermine skins and carved antelope horns.
b. When one woman emailed him to complain that the clues were too difficult, he told her the treasure chest is located more than 300 miles west of Toledo.
c. Based on the 5000 plus emails he has received about the treasure, he estimates that more than 1,000 people have searched for it, so he assumes there must be others out there that he doesn’t know about.
2. The word benefactor is made up of the prefix bene-, meaning “well.” Using this information as well as your knowledge of the root word -fac-, choose the correct definition of benefactor.
a. Someone who does good for others.
b. Someone who resists doing good for others.
c. Someone who refuses to do good for others.
3. The following excerpt from “The Thrill of the Chase” consists of a series of short sentences.
It seemed like a perfect plan. Except for one hitch. Fenn didn’t die. Forrest Fenn’s cancer went into remission-and it stayed that way.
What is most clearly the effect of the short sentences on the reader?
a. The short sentences slow the pace.
b. The short sentences create musicality.
c. The short sentences produce drama and impact.
4. Read this excerpt from “The Thrill of the Chase.”
Fenn decided he would hide the chest with a copy of his book in the desert, maybe even as he walked out into the wilderness to die. That could trigger a hunt of its own, spark some excitement; one day an intrepid searcher would find his bones and his treasure and learn who he was, think kindly of him.
What is most clearly the effect of these longer sentences on the reader?
a. They create a rapid pace that pulls the reader through the text.
b. They provide rhythm and contribute complex thoughts and details.
c. They compact ideas so they can be understood quickly and effectively.
5. The following excerpt from “The Thrill of the Chase” is an example of writing using alternating sentence lengths. What effect does this style of writing most clearly have on the reader?
When Fenn himself walks down the street these days, locals constantly stop him; they want to know if anyone has found the treasure. Others shake his hand and call him a hero. Local jeweler Marc Howard hails Fenn as a cross between Will Rogers and Mark Twain. “He’s a story-weaver, and has created a legacy that will reach out into the future.”
a. It presents ideas in a direct, rapid, to-the-point manner.
b. It produces drama and substance by focusing intently on just one or two ideas.
c. It gives the writing rhythm and musicality and makes the text easier to understand.

INTO THE WILD CHAPTER/: THE ENIGMA OF CHRIS After Chapter 1, what do readers know about Chris aka Alex? Find examples of both
direct and indirect characterization and explain what each reveals about his character. Then, write or draw (in symbol form) his character traits
in the silhouette below. Evidence: Evidence: Evidence: Evidence:

TO 40:56 Read the claim. Which statement best analyzes the rebuttal? Human bodies have developed over time to support a vegetarian diet. It is effective because it creates emphasis by adding reasoning to the claim. Read the counterclaim. It is effective because it provides both empirical and logical supporting evidence. Humans have eaten meat along with plants for more than two million years, contributing to our successful evolution. Read the rebuttal. It is ineffective because it does not logically point out a flaw in the counterclaim. Evolution is the process of development over history, meaning that change in diet is constant. Unmark this question Next Submit

Abc Read the excerpt from Julius Caesar, act 3, scene 2. Which paraphrase of the passage is the best? [BRUTUS.] If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: it is not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living, and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live and die as free men? As Caesar loved me, I weep for him. As he was fortunate, I rejoice at it. But as he was ambitious, I slew him. O Brutus asks the people of Rome if they would rather have Caesar alive and they all be slaves, or have Caesar dead so they can live freely. O Brutus explains that he loved Caesar but loves Rome more. O Brutus clarifies that he rose against Caesar not because he did not love Caesar, but because he loved.
Mark this and return Save and Exit Next Submit

watch the video COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS | Funny video

answer the following question and support you answer
1. what is the cause of miscommunication?identify the elements that caused the problem.
2. which type of communication is/are present in the video? ( according to mode and context)
Elements of the Speech Communication Process
1. Speaker or sender – the person who initiates a speech transaction
2. Message- whatever a speaker communicates to someone else
3. Channel or medium- means by which a message is communicated
4. Listener or receiver- the receiver of the communicated message
5. Feedback- comes in many forms and must be understood
6. Interference or noise- anything that holds back or hinders the communication of the message
7. Situation or setting – the time and place of occurrence
types of communication
According to Mode
• Verbal Communication – a type of communication that uses words to convey a message. Some forms of verbal communication are written and oral communication.
Examples: Written communication – letters, texting, emailing
Oral communication – face-to-face conversation, speech, radio
• Non-Verbal Communication – a type of communication that uses body language to convey a message. Body language is one form of non-verbal communication.
Examples: covering the mouth (gesture used to hide a smile or frown)
Head nod (to show agreement)
Finger tapping (impatience)
Arms crossed over chest (indicates defensiveness or stress)
• Visual Communication – a type of communication that uses visuals to convey information and/or messages.
Examples: signs, symbols, imagery, maps, graphs, charts, diagrams, pictograms, photos,
drawings, Illustrations, and even various forms of electronic communication.
According to Context
• Intrapersonal Communication – It is the communication done with oneself. Included are
thoughts, assessments, contemplations, and feelings that are associated with one’s inner
communication.
• Interpersonal Communication – It is the communication where the exchange of ideas and
information happens between two or more people by way of any channel.
This can be face-to-face communication, online, over the phone, or in written forms.

The introduction paragraph must contain the following:
The “Hook” sentence – Definition, Fact, Question, Quote, or Statement
Transition sentence – the bridge between the “Hook” and “Thesis Statement”; as a suggestion a fact would work
Thesis Statement – What you plan to prove in your essay based on the research you’ve done
The body paragraph must contain the following:
The topic sentence
Textual evidence (a cited source)
Explanation of the textual evidence
An example of the textual evidence
A conclusion sentence (the wrap up)
A transition sentence (only for the 1st and 2nd paragraphs)
This paragraph will either represent your first supporting detail, as outlined in your thesis statement, or give further explanation to your thesis statement with a clear topic sentence. Remember this paragraph, and the two body paragraphs that will follow, must have a topic sentence, which reiterates a supporting detail to the main idea of the topic, textual evidence (a citation), an example to further explain the supporting detail, and a conclusion / transition sentence.

As you read “Videotape” by Don DeLillo, please answer the following discussion questions.
What, do you believe/think is the purpose of this story?
Can you consider the point of view of this story to be second person? The speaker addresses the reader: “If you’ve seen the tape many times you know from the hand wave exactly when he will be hit…You say to your wife, if she is home and she is there, Now here is where he gets it. You say, Janet hurry up, this is where it happens” (para24). And yet the reader doesn’t have a wife named Janet, or any wife at all, for that matter. How does the “you” of the story become another character but also represent the reader? How does this technique help DeLillo achieve the purpose of his story? Is his technique effective, why or why not?
How does this story question the relationship between art-or at least the content s of the video aired often on the news-and the artist-in this case a young girl fooling around during a car ride with her family?
Who is the main character of “Videotape”? If you think of several answers, consider how each answer would affect the focus of the story and thus its theme and message?

1 Which choice best summarizes the passage? A) A character’s arrival at her family’s ink shop sparks fond memories of her favorite aunt. B) A character’s surprise visit leads to a happy reunion at her family’s ink shop. C) A character comes to understand her father’s ambitions while visiting her family’s ink shop. D) A character’s visit to her family’s ink shop deepens her appreciation of her family’s work.

57:40 Read the excerpt from Act I, scene i of Romeo and Juliet. Which lines from the excerpt support the inference that Romeo is emotionally conflicted? Select 3 options.
Romeo: Alas! that love, whose view is muffled still, Should, without eyes, see pathways to his will. O Should, without eyes, see pathways to his will. O Yet tell me not, for I have heard it all. Where shall we dine? O me! What fray was here? O O heavy lightness! serious vanity! Yet tell me not, for I have heard it all. Here’s much to do with hate, but more with love O Mis-shapen chaos of well-seeming forms! Why then, O brawling love! O loving hate! O Feather of lead, bright smoke, cold fire, sick health! O any thing! of nothing first create Dost thou not laugh? O heavy lightness! serious vanity! Mis-shapen chaos of well-seeming forms! Feather of lead, bright smoke, cold fire, sick health!
Mark this and return Save and Exit Next Submit

As the instructions suggests, I need to identify where he is using voice markers to distinguish his views from others. I am having a lot of trouble figuring this out.
Read Sean Blanda’s essay “The ‘Other Side’ Is Not Dumb,” which first appeared in
Medium
, a website for news and commentary, in 2016.
Read carefully and highlight where Blanda distinguishes between his own ideas and the ideas of others using voice markers. You might use different highlight colors to note when Blanda uses voice markers to express his own view versus someone else’s view.
The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb
SEAN BLANDA
THERE’S A FUN GAME I like to play in a group of trusted friends called “Controversial Opinion.” The rules are simple: Don’t talk about what was shared during Controversial Opinion afterward and you aren’t allowed to “argue”—:only to ask questions about why that person feels that way. Opinions can range from “I think James Bond movies are overrated” to “I think Donald Trump would make a excellent president.”
Usually, someone responds to an opinion with, “Oh my god! I had no idea you were one of
those
people!” Which is really another way of saying “I thought you were on my team!”
In psychology, the idea that everyone is like us is called the “false-consensus bias.” This bias often manifests itself when we see TV ratings (“Who the hell are all these people that watch
NCIS
?”) or in politics (“Everyone I know is for stricter gun control! Who are these backwards rubes that disagree?!”)or polls (“Who are these people voting for Ben Carson?”).
Online it means we can be blindsided by the opinions of our friends or, more broadly, America. Over time, this morphs into a subconscious belief that we and our friends are the sane ones and that there’s a crazy “Other Side” that must be laughed at—an Other Side that just doesn’t “get it,” and is clearly not as intelligent as “us.” But this holier-than-thou social media behavior is counterproductive, it’s self-aggrandizement at the cost of actual nuanced discourse and if we want to consider online discourse productive, we need to move past this.
What is emerging is the worst kind of echo chamber, one where those inside are increasingly convinced that everyone shares their world view, that their ranks are growing when they aren’t. It’s like clockwork: an event happens and then your social media circle is shocked when a non-social media peer group public reacts to news in an unexpected way. They then mock the Other Side for being “out of touch” or “dumb.”
Fredrik deBoer, one of my favorite writers around, touched on this in his essay “Getting Past the Coalition of the Cool.” He writes:
[The Internet] encourages people to collapse any distinction between their work life, their social life, and their political life. “Hey, that person who tweets about the TV shows I like also dislikes injustice,” which over time becomes “I can identify an ally by the TV shows they like.” The fact that you can mine a Rihanna video for political content becomes, in that vague internety way, the sense that people who don’t see political content in Rihanna’s music aren’t on your side.
When someone communicates that they are not “on our side” our first reaction is to run away or dismiss them as stupid. To be sure, there are hateful, racist people not worthy of the small amount of electricity it takes [for] just one of your synapses to fire. I’m instead referencing those who actually believe in an opposing viewpoint of a complicated issue, and do so for genuine, considered reasons. Or at least, for reasons just as good as yours.
This is not a “political correctness” issue. It’s a fundamental rejection of the possibility to consider that the people who don’t feel the same way you do might be right. It’s a preference to see the Other Side as a cardboard cutout, and not the complicated individual human beings that they actually are.
What happens instead of genuine intellectual curiosity is the sharing of
Slate
or
Daily Kos
or
Fox News
or
Red State
links. Sites that exist almost solely to produce content to be shared so friends can pat each other on the back and mock the Other Side. Look at the Other Side! So dumb and unable to see this the way I do!
Sharing links that mock a caricature of the Other Side isn’t signaling that we’re somehow more informed. It signals that we’d rather be smug assholes than consider alternative views. It signals that we’d much rather show our friends that we’re like them, than try to understand those who are not.
It’s impossible to consider yourself a curious person and participate in social media in this way. We cannot consider ourselves “empathetic” only to turn around and belittle those who don’t agree with us.
On Twitter and Facebook this means we prioritize by sharing stuff that will garner approval of our peers over stuff that’s actually, you know, true. We share stuff that ignores wider realities, selectively shares information, or is just an outright falsehood. The misinformation is so rampant that the
Washington Post
stopped publishing its Internet fact-checking column because people didn’t seem to care if stuff was true.
Where debunking an Internet fake once involved some research, it’s now often as simple as clicking around for an “about” or “disclaimer” page. And where a willingness to believe hoaxes once seemed to come from a place of honest ignorance or misunderstanding, that’s frequently no longer the case. Headlines like “Casey Anthony found dismembered in truck” go viral via old-fashioned schadenfreude—even hate.
…
Institutional distrust is so high right now, and cognitive bias so strong
always
, that the people who fall for hoax news stories are frequently only interested in consuming information that conforms with their views—even when it’s demonstrably fake.
The solution, as deBoer says, “You have to be willing to sacrifice your carefully curated social performance and be willing to work with people who
are not like you
.” In other words you have to recognize that the Other Side is made of actual people.
But I’d like to go a step further. We should all enter every issue with the very real possibility that
we might be wrong this time.
Isn’t it possible that you, reader of
Medium
and Twitter power user, like me, suffer from this from time to time? Isn’t it possible that we’re not right about everything? That those who live in places not where you live, watch shows that you don’t watch, and read books that you don’t read, have opinions and belief systems just as valid as yours? That maybe you don’t see the entire picture?
Think political correctness has gotten out of control? Follow the many great social activists on Twitter. Think America’s stance on guns is puzzling? Read the stories of the 31% of Americans that own a firearm. This is not to say the Other Side is “right” but that they likely have real reasons to feel that way. And only after understanding those reasons can a real discussion take place.
As any debate club veteran knows, if you can’t make your opponent’s point for them, you don’t truly grasp the issue. We can bemoan political gridlock and a divisive media all we want. But we won’t truly progress as individuals until we make an honest effort to understand those that are not like us. And you won’t convince anyone to feel the way you do if you don’t respect their position and opinions.
A dare for the next time you’re in discussion with someone you disagree with: Don’t try to “win.” Don’t try to “convince” anyone of your viewpoint. Don’t score points by mocking them to your peers. Instead try to “lose.” Hear them out. Ask them to convince you and mean it. No one is going to tell your environmentalist friends that you merely asked follow-up questions after your brother made his pro-fracking case.
Or, the next time you feel compelled to share a link on social media about current events, ask yourself why you are doing it. Is it because that link brings to light information you hadn’t considered? Or does it confirm your world view, reminding your circle of intellectual teammates that you’re not on the Other Side?
I implore you to seek out your opposite. When you hear someone cite “facts” that don’t support your viewpoint don’t think “that can’t be true!” Instead consider, “Hm, maybe that person is right? I should look into this.” Because refusing to truly understand those who disagree with you is intellectual laziness and worse, is
usually
worse than what you’re accusing the Other Side of doing.