Semicolons The semicolon has three primary functions:
1.) To combine two closely related complete sentences which are not joined by a
conjunction
2.) To separate complete sentences that are joined by a conjunctive adverb. Common
conjunctive adverbs: however, therefore, nevertheless, furthermore, in addition
3.) To separate items in a list when commas alone would be confusing.
Correctly insert semicolons in the following sentences:
1. I am wearing a sweater and a jacket I am still cold.
2. Mix all the ingredients put it in the oven.
3. Jane likes fruit she does not like apples.
4. I do not have much money therefore, I cannot buy a new car.
5. John likes steak however, he does not like hamburgers.
6. I baked the cake for fifty minutes nevertheless, it was still uncooked in the middle.
7. I have lived in Nashville, Tennessee, Birmingham, Alabama, Atlanta, Georgia, and
Cleveland Ohin
Focus

1. I am wearing a sweater and a jacket; I am still cold.

2. Mix all the ingredients; put it in the oven.

3. Jane likes fruit; she does not like apples.

4. I do not have much money; therefore, I cannot buy a new car.

5. John likes steak; however, he does not like hamburgers.

6. I baked the cake for fifty minutes; nevertheless, it was still uncooked in the middle.

7. I have lived in Nashville, Tennessee, Birmingham, Alabama, Atlanta, Georgia, and  Cleveland; Ohio Focus

read below

Explanation:

1. I am wearing a sweater and a jacket; I am still cold.

2. Mix all the ingredients; put it in the oven.

3. Jane likes fruit; she does not like apples.

4. I do not have much money; therefore, I cannot buy a new car.

5. John likes steak; however, he does not like hamburgers.

6. I baked the cake for fifty minutes; nevertheless, it was still uncooked in the middle.

7. I have lived in Nashville; Tennessee, Birmingham, Alabama, Atlanta, Georgia, and Cleveland Ohio.

formal arguments

in written, formal arguments, the best way to build credibility with readers is to provide them with evidence. no matter what your argument might be and which side you agree with, citing strong evidence to back up your claim leaves the opposition with little to argue.

emotional appeal is often used in oral arguments. written arguments, however, rely on four main types of evidence. as you read further, you will see that some types are more credible than others and "hold more water" so to speak.

statistical evidence

the strongest type of evidence in formal writing is statistical evidence. this ranges from true, hard data presented as a percentage or number, to survey-type data. for example, statistical evidence could be:

4 out of 5 experts claim

85% of women in the united

7 members were present

statistical evidence can be proven as fact. you can actually go out and find hard information to prove your particular claim.

testimonial evidence

the use of celebrities as credibility evidence can be considered testimonial in nature. many people look up to celebrities as role models in their lives. good or bad, when a person chooses a life-path that takes them into public light, there will be many others out there who want to emulate the celebrity. these celebrity endorsements provide the second-strongest type of evidence found in formal arguments.

testimonial evidence can also be collected from experts and authorities in a given field. doctors, dentists, lawyers often provide expert testimonials. their authority is not often questions. they are expected to "know their stuff."

anecdotal evidence

when storytelling is involved as evidence, anecdotal evidence is being used. due to its less objective nature, anecdotal evidence is not extremely strong. when coupled with statistical or testimonial evidence, anecdotal evidence can be highly effective in determining credibility or proof.

storytelling, although based on fact, can include quite a bit of opinion, thus making it less objective. usually, eyewitnesses are used as providers of anecdotal evidence. they saw or experienced the phenomenon at hand are telling their version or side of the story.

analogical evidence

when information is scarce about something and little is known, analogical evidence is often used in a formal argument to increase credibility of the proof. if the phenomenon in question is new and little is known about it, analogical evidence that pulls in known factors about a similar phenomenon to show parallels can be an effective way to provide proof.

due to limited knowledge about the phenomenon, in this situation, analogical evidence can be regarded as the weakest type of evidence used in formal arguments. one can only imagine and hope that the comparison-phenomenon is close enough that the results can be applied to the new phenomenon.

in the

all that really matters in a formal argument is whether or not the writer has credible evidence to back up what they want to say or what they are thinking. so often, we hear people say, "prove it! " to one another.

one last little formal arguments not only provide credible evidence to support claims, don't forget that acknowledgment of the opposing point of view in an argument also strengthens the entire product.

yes as the core issue is an ever increasing majority of human workers   will become permanently unemployed as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines inevitably replace more expensive human workers with each passing year.

economic growth now and in the future requires that fewer jobs are created for human workers. this is the desirable inevitable consequence. the automation of the jobs of human workers is the most profitable economically productive activity on the planet.

so as a global society we need to have a plan to deal with this inevitable change.

automation has been, is and will always be a friend to human society if human society on a global basis is prepared to deal with the inevitable consequences.

what is key is that automation killing all jobs is only a matter of when not if.

the real question is can we get past the now invalid assumption that most humans can work for a decent wage going forward.

i spent my working career increasing automation and increasing efficiency. this consequently reduces the hours worked by humans while increasing the output economic goods and services at an ever decreasing price.

why not have ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines create the vast majority of required economic goods and services as opposed to human workers?

why not have most human workers working less and retiring earlier?

there is much more to life than working forever.

fortunately, automation has been going on for decades and will continue as an irreversible process as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines permanently replace more costly human workers.

i write this answer for the people that have an open mind and are not living in the past this is what i feel most effectively deals with the tractable issues that automation creates.

the question at hand is how we deal with automation going forward as a society.

automation is only a threat because society has yet to acknowledge automation is happening let alone effectively a having a plan to address it.

a conservative libertarian free market idea where individuals choose what economic goods and services are produced in the free market as the free market supply will respond to free market demand. this is not a centrally planned communist economy.

it is yes as the core issue is an ever increasing majority of human workers   will become permanently unemployed as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines inevitably replace more expensive human workers with each passing year.

economic growth now and in the future requires that fewer jobs are created for human workers. this is the desirable inevitable consequence. the automation of the jobs of human workers is the most profitable economically productive activity on the planet.

so as a global society we need to have a plan to deal with this inevitable change.

automation has been, is and will always be a friend to human society if human society on a global basis is prepared to deal with the inevitable consequences.

what is key is that automation killing all jobs is only a matter of when not if.

the real question is can we get past the now invalid assumption that most humans can work for a decent wage going forward.

i spent my working career increasing automation and increasing efficiency. this consequently reduces the hours worked by humans while increasing the output economic goods and services at an ever decreasing price.

why not have ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines create the vast majority of required economic goods and services as opposed to human workers?

why not have most human workers working less and retiring earlier?

there is much more to life than working forever.

fortunately, automation has been going on for decades and will continue as an irreversible process as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines permanently replace more costly human workers.

i write this answer for the people that have an open mind and are not living in the past this is what i feel most effectively deals with the tractable issues that automation creates.

the question at hand is how we deal with automation going forward as a society.

automation is only a threat because society has yet to acknowledge automation is happening let alone effectively a having a plan to address it.

a conservative libertarian free market idea where individuals choose what economic goods and services are produced in the free market as the free market supply will respond to free market demand. this is not a centrally planned communist economy.

hope this