Rick read the following argument: Although the gas helium is the second most abundant element in the known universe, its supplies on Earth are limited. Most helium comes either from mining minerals or as a byproduct of natural gas. Although helium is in low supply, the demand for it is quite high. It can be used for a variety of medical purposes, including the treatment of breathing problems such as asthma. Helium also has heart and nerve protective properties, and doctors are beginning to use it in surgery. Yet current laws make recycling helium unprofitable. For the sake of our health, those laws must change.

Which statement would be the most appropriate in a conclusion to this argument? Why?

A.
“These laws are unlikely to change, so we must take steps to manufacture helium on our own.” This statement makes the logical leap that if we can't recycle helium, we should create it.
B.
“Until human disease is a thing of the past, we cannot support laws that put helium supplies at risk.” This restates the claim of this argument, which is that we should do everything in our power to treat human diseases.
C.
“If there is any practical use for helium other than medicine, laws should change to protect current supplies of the gas.” This sentence summarizes one of the major points of the argument, which is that helium reserves are in low supply.
D.
“Human health depends on helium, and therefore it is necessary to change the laws that make it hard to acquire.” This restates the claim of the argument and also summarizes the supporting evidence that illnesses can be treated by helium.

s

Explanation:

the correct answer IS definitley a or d not c or b

Explanation:

yw

the author is intending to draw attention to the plight of refugees, editorial and biography support this. both workpieces make the reader empathize with enrique as well as with the other young migrants from central america. the writer, however, is using a different approach to each text.

the editorial includes strong words to persuade readers. he is trying hard to convince readers in the us to change its refugee approach.

the biography relies on narrative techniques and figurative language which the writer uses wisely in the setting, characterization, and personification to educate readers on the topic.

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).