Which of the following BEST explains the difference between majority and concurring opinions? A.
A majority opinion is the collective opinion of the majority, while the concurring opinion is the collective opinion of the minority or the losing side of a vote.
B.
A majority opinion reflects the opinion of the dissenters, while the concurring decision agrees with the dissenters, but for different reasons than the majority opinion.
C.
A majority opinion is the collective opinion of the winning side, while a concurring opinion agrees with the majority vote, but for different reasons than the majority opinion.
D.
A majority opinion reflects the opinion of the majority of Americans, while a concurring opinion reflects the opinion of the majority vote in a Supreme Court ruling.

soothing tone) but quickly, the tone changes from a light tone to a grim one. by introducing disturbing word choices that are illogical.make a list of some of levertov’s images of war from both of her poems. how do her wordsaffect you? do you agree with her position on war? write a short response (at least 100 words) and support your answer with personal experience or your studiespoets can change the tone in a poem, and levertov does when the she refers to "delicate man . .whose eyes/are flowers that perceive the stars”. the word choices here are different. theimages began to show feelings of hope/potential. but this mood is interrupted with the dark oppressive words "entrails of still-alive babies" and "carcass-gulleys". levertov continues to switch tones by "the deep intelligence living at peace would have"—one is left with a sense of hope. i can connect with her words that humans can do better things than fight in war. we only have one life so dying in a war would be for no reason. also, i am a christian and in the bible, it says "thou shall not kill", and i strongly believe in that.people respond differently to satire—some like it, others don't get it. in at least 150 words, describe what you think of goines's narrative essay. discuss whether you think his position is convincing.the satire kept people's attention, rather than just rambling. instead of being dead serious, he adds humor to enlighten it. i think he did a good job of proving his point, but convincing people to stray from their own beliefs is hard, and satire can be offensive to that person. overall i think that goines's narrative essay was good because narrative essay create deeper understanding. i also like that the narrative essay is in first-person. the essay was filled with diction and word choice to let you know that the essay is going to be witty yet satirical. his point was to write  

explanation:

the old way of life was represented by superstition, an angry god, and absolute submission to authority. the thinkers of the age of reason ushered in a new way of thinking. this new way championed the accomplishments of humankind. individuals did not have to accept despair. science and reason could bring happiness and progress. kings did not rule by divine right. they had an obligation to their subjects. europeans pondered the implications for nearly a century. americans put them into practice first.

i dont know sorry why dont you looking it up on google