Answer:
Tom Ramsay was the outlier in his family.
Explanation:
3. George Ramsay had a steady income from his circle of friends and easily made new ones.
Conclusion: C) The author demonstrates bias by choosing terms such as "silly" and "stupid."
Justification: The expressions "silly" and "stupid" emerge as the only instances of proof among the options, as they are directly quoted from the discussed text. The best example of incorporating the text's content into the conversation is found in option C (identifying the author's sentiments), though this option lacks a definitive conclusion. Option A presents a personal view with an ambiguous source ("I feel") while option B attempts to support the stated conclusion through an assumption ("the author obviously hates [...] fast food") rather than direct evidence.
The question you posed is incomplete; here’s the full form: Is the following topic suitable for a research paper? Why or how not? how a cheetah eats its food A. No, it is too broad. B. No, it is too narrow. C. Yes, it is broad enough. D. Yes, it is narrow enough. The correct response is B. No, it is too narrow. In the context of a research paper, particularly one spanning four to six pages, multiple perspectives from various sources are required to discuss the primary subject. This means a topic is only suitable if it can be explored thoroughly over 4 to 6 pages necessitating numerous details. Writing about "how a cheetah eats its food" likely fails to meet this, as cheetahs probably have very few mechanisms for feeding, reducing the scope of detail needed. Thus, it's inappropriate because it lacks sufficient depth or variety, being overly narrow.