Read the passage from beowulf.

beowulf, ecgtheow’s son, replied:
"well, friend unferth, you have had your say
about breca and me. but it was mostly beer
that was doing the talking. the truth is this:
when the going was heavy in those high waves,
i was the strongest swimmer of all.
we’d been children together and we grew up
daring ourselves to outdo each other,
boasting and urging each other to risk
our lives on the sea.

now read luka’s inference.

even though he’s a warrior, beowulf often uses diplomacy instead of rushing to anger and aggression.

which sentence from the passage best supports his inference?

well, friend unferth, you have had your say about breca and me.

but it was mostly beer that was doing the talking.

the truth is this: when the going was heavy in those high waves, i was the strongest swimmer of all.

we’d been children together and we grew up daring ourselves to outdo each other, boasting and urging each other to risk our lives on the sea.

But it was mostly beer that was doing the talking.

Explanation:

Beowulf is implying that Unferth said some unpleasant things about Breca and him but he did it because the alcohol (beer) not because he is a bad person. Beowulf is showing his diplomacy skills by deescalating a potentially harsh situation.

We can conclude that the sentence that best support Luka's inference is: But it was mostly beer that was doing the talking.

faulty parallelism is a construction in which two or more parts of a sentence are equivalent in meaning but not grammatically similar in form.

the correct version of this faulty parallelism in the sentence is:

the hikers knew that the hike was six miles, that it usually required the entire day, and it would not be wise to start after 10: 00 a.m.

the problem is the last sentence, the first two have a basic subject+verb+object structure.

so, to give a proper balance to the structure, or better said, to give a parallel structure, we must write a basic s+v+o structure in all three sentences:

the hikers knew that the hike was six miles, that it usually required the entire day, and it would not be wise to start after 10: 00 a.m.

explanation:

the intellectual community is a place like a university where people with high marks, or original thought or an outstanding interest in something gather. they take classes together. they discuss things. they argue sometimes, and not always in a friendly way. but if they argue, it is because they are passionate about something, and there is nothing the matter with that.

lately i've been hearing rumors that it is not the way it was when i went to school. the one thing all schools used to have was free speech. the 1st amendment rights were sacred. now i'm hearing they are not. students can be reported and disciplined for giving an off the wall opinion.

that is shameful.

intellectual ideas are meant to be discussed. they are meant to be chewed up and worked on. that is the primary responsibility of every intellectual community. if that is not the way it is, then that is not a school to go to.

social media, in my opinion, and this is just an opinion. i wouldn't take it too seriously, complicates everything to do with human communication. you can want to share things and others feel they have the right to be very critical or sarcastic or mean about what you share. lack of respect is an immeasurable intolerable condition and social media abounds with that sort of thing.

one of the things i really like about is how careful people are because they must have some idea that the mods are exactly what the word says they are. they police this board very well, and what is so remarkable about them is that they are no older than the average grade 12 student.

my hat goes off to them (which means i respect them quite a bit).