When insulted for not being streetwise and city-smart, will rogers once said i’d a lot rather be the man who bought the brooklyn bridge than the man who sold it. how should the sentence above be changed to demonstrate the correct use of quotation marks? a. the sentence is correct as it is written. b. “brooklyn bridge” should be in quotation marks because it is the title of a large and famous landmark. c. “i’d a lot rather be the man who bought the brooklyn bridge than the man who sold it” should be in quotation marks because it is a direct quotation from rogers. d. the entire sentence should be in quotation marks for special emphasis and ironic use.

The correct answer is C. "I'd a lot rather be the man who bought the Brooklyn Bridge than the man who sold it" should be in quotation marks because it is a direct quotation from Rogers

Explanation:

The quotation marks (") are punctuation marks used for different purposes, that include marking the title of short works such as poems, articles or chapters or marking certain words, but the main and most common purpose of quotation marks is to mark someone else words or speech in direct quotations, this means the quotation marks show the exact words said by someone and that differ from the words of the author of the text. Because of this, most quotations are introduced by mentioning the name of the person that said the words in quotation and these words are connected to the author's ideas.

Considering this, in the sentence "Will Rogers once said I’d a lot rather be the man who bought the Brooklyn Bridge than the man who sold it" the "I’d a lot rather be the man who bought the Brooklyn Bridge than the man who sold it" should be in quotation marks as these are the words of Will Rogers and not of the author of the text which should be recognized for the reader to know which ideas belong to the author and which ideas belong to other people. Thus, the sentence should be changed as quotation marks are needed to separate the words of Will Rogers from the ideas of the author of the text.

idk but i did find this

explanation:

in the story of the cowardly lion and the hungry tiger, we first see the two characters inside the empty throne room of ozma, bored and sadly very much aware of their uselessness as guardians. they talked about the good old days when they used to be feared. they proceeded to make up stories of how fearsome they were. the cowardly lion professed that he can tear men/women into pieces, while the hungry tiger said he would eat fat babies. but when they proceeded to act upon their words they were forced to realize that they were indeed harmless and good animals who would rather be called cowardly and hungry than harm a woman or eat a child.

i claim you tobemy lord