Using the information found in this passage, write three sentences. one sentence should paraphrase the passage, one sentence should quote the passage directly, and one sentence should simply summarize the passage. from the following source on page 98: howard, donald. norwegian myths and legends. san francisco: little brown, 1995. print. "in norway legends, trolls are clearly trouble to all human beings they encounter, but that does not mean that the trolls are necessarily evil. they might be more properly characterized as mischievous. norwegian parents to this day might joke with a particular naughty child that "you have a little bit of troll inside you," indicating that while trolls may cause problems, they aren't horrific, terrifying monsters. you might even go so far as to claim that some norwegians have a fondness for trolls--or at least the idea of them."it’s for a benchmark test, so i don’t really care what it’s like.

Paraphrasing is rewording the original material into a slightly shorter segment:

"In Norwegian legend, while trolls may be troublemakers, they are not portrayed as evil. Norwegian parents may even jokingly say that their child 'has some troll in them' if they misbehave. Sometimes, Norwegians are fond of the idea of trolls."

Quotations. When quoting from a passage, the segment from the original source must be identical, and you must give credit to the author. Here's a passage that quotes and credits the orginal passage:

Norwegians have a positive view of trolls in their legends. In his work Norwegian Myths and Legends, Donald Howard states that "Norwegians have a fondness for trolls--or at least the idea of them" (page 98).

Summarizing means putting the main idea into your own words. Here's a sentence that summarizes the passage:

In Norway, trolls are not seen as evil, they are seen as mischievous - some Norwegians are actually fond of them.

no,

explanation:

because they are likely to use their corrupted thought process to get what they want. not what is better for the another reason they shouldn't is since they abused their rights as a us citizen they should have certain rights stripped away from them as punishment, such as the right to vote. due to the lack of proper behavior exemplified   from their actions , it would be hard for people to trust them because of their criminal record.   either directly (in the case of a referendum or ballot initiative) or indirectly (by choosing lawmakers and law enforcers). in fact, we do have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws that we require people to meet before they are given a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. people who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don’t meet those standards. and those crimes can include such “non-violent felonies” as, say, treason and espionage, or voter fraud and public corruption, white-collar crime and felonies merely “concerning drugs” — like trafficking in fentanyl-laced heroin and selling it to minors, for example. if you’re not willing to follow the law, then you should not have a role in making the law for everyone else.