+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

The Central Relationship :

The FCC should regulate the “big five” movie studios, because the media industry has become an oligopoly, and regulating it would support competition and small filmmakers .

Please follow the files below and reply the central relationship , the reply have to demonstrates a good understanding of the concepts and ability to apply them .

The components of your central relationship fit the requirements very well. Your subject
agent, “The United States Department of Education,” worked well with your modal,
“should,” and your first action verb, “impose,” to form a solid policy claim. It was clear that
your thesis was, “The United States Department of Education should establish immersion
programs for Native American languages in public schools.” Your because clause, “because
the United States Department of Education can increase the amount of young speakers of
Native American languages,” was also effective. It repeated your subject and added the new
action verb “increase.” Overall, you set good parameters, so in your argument, you can
argue for the derived assumption that “Anyone who wants to increase the amount of young
speakers of Native American languages should establish immersion programs for Native
American languages in public schools” and for your because clause that “the United States
Department of Education can increase the amount of young speakers of Native American
languages.” The terms of the argument are clear, “United States Department of Education”,
“immersion programs”, “Native American languages”, “young speakers”, and “public
schools.” These are the terms that should be addressed historically and consequentially in
your exposition and developed more fully in the rest of the argument, and some of them
will surface in the counter argument and the resolution of the counter argument.
The Counter Argument : At some point in your discovery, you are likely to come across a
voice that disagrees with your argument or some aspect of your argument. If opposition to
your argument or some aspect of your argument exists in the public domain and you do not
address it, readers will be skeptical of your knowledge or sincerity. They are unlikely to see
you as more informed than they are, and your credibility will suffer. Aristotle calls this your
ethos. On the other hand, you do not want to contrive opposition just so you can beat it
down in the presence of your readers. Such contrived opposition usually starts with phrases
like “some may think….” or “opponents often say….” If real opposition exists, you must
respond to it. Sometimes you might have to concede that the opposition is reasonable. In
that case you might show how even so, your course of action (the change you seek and the
way to get there) is still the preferred outcome.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

  
error: Content is protected !!