Why would the following likely fail as the basis for an interpretive argument about "humpty dumpty? " "at the end of the rhyme, humpty dumpty is broken." a. it is based on an assumptions, rather than facts from the rhyme. b. it just states what happened in the text, rather than finding implicit meaning. c. it just summarizes the rhyme, rather than making a reasoned judgment about it. d. none of the above

B. It just states what happened in the text, rather than finding implicit meaning.

An interpretive argument is meant to help you dissect a piece of information that is not clearly stated or that has a hidden, second meaning. In this case, the explanation is simply restating what the rhyme says, not "interpreting."

A better exercise would be to argue, for example, that Humpty Dumpty died from the fall. This would mean that "to break" is another way of saying "to die," except that the rhyme does not state it as such. In this case, you would have found a hidden meaning behind the literal phrase, and it would be a case of interpretation.

no its not this is a very legal platform

i need more information about this article .