Dakota discusses the actualities of increased traffic and the decline in the teaching of drivers education. She doesn't use statistics (choice a). Her argument is not emotion filled, which rules out choice b. She doesn't mention fairness (choice c) and doesn't tell stories about specific situations (choice d).
The speakers support their arguments in different ways, but both are concerned with whether sixteen-year-olds should continue to be allowed to receive drivers licenses.
This evidence would back up the speaker's contention that young students should learn the basics before learning computers. Choices a and d, which are both about cost, would have no effect on the argument. Choices b and c are too vague.
The speaker uses analogies to compare crawling with learning arithmetic and reading and to compare walking with using a computer. The speaker is making the point that, in both cases, a child needs to learn one before learning the other.
This is the best choice because it relates to a situation where a proposed law would actually violate the part of the Constitution it is intended to protect.
This is the best choice because it relates to a situation where a proposed law would actually violate the part of the Constitution it is intended to protect.
The fact that the Pyramid scheme is set up by a con artist suggests that the honest people who invest have been fooled. Choices a and b are contradicted in the passage. The paragraph says that the Pyramid scheme originated in the 1920s, but does not say it had its heyday then; thus, choice d is incorrect. Choice e is a fact, but it is not mentioned in the passage.
Exam Wise
Subject Wise
View Answer
Discuss in forum
Workspace
Report
