Reread this sentence. Which choice best explains whether this an emotional appeal or a logical argument? Sentence: Logan Bower, president of the dairymen and professional Diary managers of Pennsylvania, points out that the use of rbSt "was approved by the FDA only after being found completely safe for the consumer, the cow, and the environment.
a: An emotional appeal, because of the loaded words : completly safe
b: an emotional appeal, because bowser is well known but not an authority on the subject of rbST.
c: A logical argument, because bower is giving his expert opinion.
d: A logical appeal, because it cites a fact about the consumer, the cow, and the environment.

instagram is better than go there instead lol

step-by-step explanation:

r = 78539458390583095803458309458039485093485 or just 3

step-by-step explanation:

i think it's eleven too, don't woosh me here, but according to the "experts" it's 2.

the proof starts from the peano postulates, which define the natural

numbers n. n is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

  p1.   1 is in n.

  p2.   if x is in n, then its "successor" x' is in n.

  p3.   there is no x such that x' = 1.

  p4.   if x isn't 1, then there is a y in n such that y' = x.

  p5.   if s is a subset of n, 1 is in s, and the implication

      (x in s => x' in s) holds, then s = n.

then you have to define addition recursively:

  def: let a and b be in n. if b = 1, then define a + b = a'

      (using p1 and p2). if b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in n

      (using p4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

then you have to define 2:

  def:   2 = 1'

2 is in n by p1, p2, and the definition of 2.

theorem:   1 + 1 = 2

proof: use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.

      then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2   q.e.d.

note: there is an alternate formulation of the peano postulates which

replaces 1 with 0 in p1, p3, p4, and p5. then you have to change the

definition of addition to this:

  def: let a and b be in n. if b = 0, then define a + b = a.

      if b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in n, and define

      a + b = (a + c)'.

you also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. then the proof of the

theorem above is a little different:

proof: use the second part of the definition of + first:

      1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'

      now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in

      parentheses:   1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2   q.e.d.

arc length = radius * x ( in radians)

6 * pi = 18 * x

divide by 18 on each side

6 pi / 18 = x

pi/3 = x

the angle is pi / 3 radians

or   60 degrees