Read the blog about sequoia nature preserve. blog: forest forever post: there’s been a lot of talk lately about cutting down the sequoia nature preserve to make a neighborhood park. the space would include a playground, ball field, picnic area, and soccer field. my feeling is, what about the forest? the sequoia nature preserve is one of the most beautiful places. i’ve spent my childhood exploring it. i can’t imagine the trees being cut down or life without it. the local wildlife would suffer too. would you really want to destroy the natural habitat of so many animals all for a park? comment: we need to encourage kids to get more exercise. new sports facilities would inspire kids to get outside more and get moving. i’m all for it. response: exercise is good, no doubt about that, but you don’t need it from sports facilities or team sports. the sequoia nature preserve has miles of paths where people walk, even jog. and when kids are walking in the forest, they area also breathing cleaner air and the surroundings are peaceful—it’s a healthy environment for people to get exercise and just get away from city life. how does writer respond in the last paragraph? she gives reasons for the counterclaim. she attacks her original claim. she attacks the counterclaim. she gives a rebuttal with support.

The correct answer is the following: option D. In the blog post about the Sequoia Nature Preserve, the author responds to the comment by giving a rebuttal with support. The comment that was made under the blog post was a counter argument to what the author was expressing. A rebuttal is a comment to that counter argument. Sometimes, rebuttals can be made without any type of support to it, in some way they can just mean "you are simply wrong". But in this case, the rebuttal made by the author had support, as she explained why the Sequoia Forest could serve as a great facility for kids and adults to be more active, without being necessary to cut the entire nature down.

anyone who was dealing with communism in soviet union in his time had an ideal picture of equality, freedom, the struggle of the working class for a better future, the success of the aristocracy's overthrow and the emancipation of subjugation.   however, anyone who would go to soviet union to see the functioning of the communist system, would be convinced that it was about sad people, about everyday bad life, about the brutal attitude of communist leaders, about ill obsession to completely exterminate every thought on aristocracy. thus, orwell wanted to show all the absurdity, the brutality of the system, the unbearable rule of suspicious morality, the ignorant people who try to play professionally.

the answers are: b. and e.