In the EEA article the melting arctic what is the effect of the author separating the article in to multiple sections?Does that structure help strengthen the argument presented in the article why or why not?

“unlike my opponent, i propose freedom from crime, freedom from poverty, and freedom from unemployment “ what rhetorical approach is the speaker most likely to be talking in this sentence? a. the speaker wants the audience to question the meaning of freedom and redifine it. b. the speaker wants the structure of this sentence to stand out in the listeners minds. c. the speaker wants to anticipate and address w counter-argument from his or her opponent. d. the speaker wants to transition into a topic that is largely unrelated to previous topics.

Read the excerpt from elie wiesel’s all rivers run to the sea. why were those trains allowed to roll unhindered into poland? why were the tracks leading to birkenau never bombed? i have put these questions to american presidents and generals and to high-ranking soviet officers. since moscow and washington knew what the killers were doing in the death camps, why was nothing done at least to slow down their “production”? that not a single allied military aircraft ever tried to destroy the rail lines converging on auschwitz remains an outrageous enigma to me. birkenau was “processing” ten thousand jews a day. stopping a single convoy for a single night—or even for just a few hours—would have prolonged so many lives. based on the paragraph, the author would most likely agree that it is best to avoid confrontation at all costs. people need to be proactive when they witness an injustice. countries should remain neutral to keep alliances strong. moscow and washington are to be blamed for the holocaust.

Which sentence is correct? laura lent me her copy of cooking weekly so i could use a recipe. i enjoy doing crossword puzzles from the new york times. herman melville wrote the novel “moby d i ck.” maggie loves to read the smithsonian magazine.