do you believe in life after death? make a reflective essay (200 words)
1. do you believe in life after death? make a reflective essay (200 words)
Answer:
Evidence of life after death
Evidence of life after deathThere is no scientific evidence for life after death, but the belief in an afterlife is strong among religious and also some non-religious people.
Explanation:
hope its helpSorry if not 200 words
2. C. Open-Ended Questions. Read the essay thoroughly. Then, answer the questions that follow. Could Britain be sued for reopening and exposing the world to new coronavirus variants? Excerpt from an essay written by Kris Gledhill After England lifted the majority of Covid-19 restrictions, the world is anticipating "Freedom Day." Some skepticism is warranted given the UK's failure to respond to the pandemic. Covid-19 had resulted in a death rate per million population of just under 1,900 by July 19. True, Hungary, Italy, and the Czech Republic have higher rates. Australia outnumbers New Zealand by 35.8 deaths per million people. Boris Johnson's government was elected with a landslide victory and a successful vaccination campaign. The current situation, however, is bleak. As a result, Europe's mortality rate is rising. Despite lower rates of death and infection, states in Australia have imposed lockdowns. Furthermore, it is opposed by many scientists. The risks to the 17 million unvaccinated Britons are as follows: "There is a worldwide threat to everyone's safety as a result of this method." Do you think Boris de Pfeffer Johnson will take these concerns seriously? Is it possible to sue the United Kingdom specifically in front of the United Nations human rights courts? Or even at the Council of Europe's European Court of Human Rights. A global option is the UN Human Rights Committee. So, what is it exactly? That "cause of action" violates human rights, including the right to life and the prohibition on torture. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the leading international human rights treaty, mandates the protection of everyone's right to life in Article 6. Article 2 of the ECHR says the same thing. In 2019, states must also combat deadly diseases, according to the UN Human Rights Committee. If a state is aware (or should be aware) that human life is in danger, it must take reasonable precautions. However, given that the entire human rights framework was designed to prevent state violations, there is no reason why government policies based on the assumption of death should not be included. We must guard beyond death. THE ICCPR AND THE EC FORBID INHUMAN AND DEFAMATORY TREATMENT. Many people believe that Covid-19's severity, including the long Covid's consequences, is adequate. Human rights standards require that the consequences be mitigated. It is not only about health. The rest of the world is worried that the UK will allow the virus to spread. Can other countries intervene? Human rights conventions are agreements between states on how to act in certain situations. According to Article 33 of the ECHR, states can request that the ECHR ruling on rights violations. It occurs regularly. To maintain the status quo, the court has the authority to issue "interim measures." The United Kingdom has agreed to sue another state under Article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Of course, suing another state is political. This pandemic, on the other hand, is about more than just health. The protection of human life is a political priority. Human rights advocates should make use of the tools at their disposal. 1. What is the editorial’s main point? 2. Is there evidence to back up the main point? Give three examples. 3. How would you describe the editorial board’s argument? 4. Comment on the language and words used in the reading material. 5. Were you persuaded to believe the claims by the material’s ideas? Why or why not?
Answer:
Explanation:
1. What is the editorial’s main point?
The central point of the editorial is to question whether United Kingdom should be accounted for causing the rising of cases and deaths due to COVID19. Although they are among the countries who have launched the vaccination drive, the new variant has originated from their country.
2. Is there evidence to back up the main point? Give three examples. Among these evidences are;
a. UK’s premature lifting of COVID19 protocols
b. UK failed the rising cases and number of deaths immediately
c. They reopened without thinking that not all Britons are vaccinated and thus exposing them even further.
3. How would you describe the editorial board’s argument?
The editorial board’s argument are counterintuitive yet informative. However, it is obviously not siding the UK government and that is Boris Johnson.
4. Comment on the language and words used in the reading material.The language and choice words are not that hard to understand. Although there are technical terms, the context clues were a large help to get the whole picture of a sentence.
5. Were you persuaded to believe the claims by the material’s ideas? Why or why not?
Yes, because a lot facts and evidences were presented. Other than that, it sounded persuasive.
#BrainlyFast
https://brainly.ph/question/21873944
3. Could Britain be sued for reopening and exposing the world to new coronavirus variants? Excerpt from an essay written by Kris GledhillAfter England lifted the majority of Covid-19 restrictions, the world is anticipating "Freedom Day" Some skepticism is warranted given the UK's failure to respond to the pandemic. Covid-19 had resulted in a death rate per million population of just under 1,900 by July 19. True, Hungary, Italy, and the Czech Republic have higher rates. Australia outnumbers New Zealand by 35.8 deaths per million people.Boris Johnson's government was elected with a landslide victory and a successful vaccination campaign. The current situation, however, is bleak. As a result, Europe's mortality rate is rising. Despite lower rates of death and infection, states in Australia have imposed lockdowns. Furthermore, it is opposed by many scientists. The risks to the 17 million unvaccinated Britons are as follows: "There is a worldwide threat to everyone's safety as a result of this method"Do you think Boris de Pfeffer Johnson will take these concerns seriously? Is it possible to sue the United Kingdom specifically in front of the United Nations human rights courts? Or even at the Council of Europe's European Court of Human Rights. A global option is the UN Human Rights Committee.So, what is it exactly? That "cause of action" violates human rights, including the right to life and the prohibition on torture. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the leading international human rights treaty, mandates the protection of everyone's right to life in Article 6. Article 2 of the ECHR says the same thing.In 2019, states must also combat deadly diseases, according to the UN Human Rights Committee. If a state is aware (or should be aware) that human life is in danger, it must take reasonable precautions. However, given that the entire human rights framework was designed to prevent state violations, there is no reason why government policies based on the assumption of death should not be included.We must guard beyond death. THE ICCPR AND THE EC FORBID INHUMAN AND DEFAMATORY TREATMENT. Many people believe that Covid-19's severity, including the long Covid's consequences, is adequate. Human rights standards require that the consequences be mitigated. It is not only about health. The rest of the world is worried that the UK will allow the virus to spread. Can other countries intervene?Human rights conventions are agreements between states on how to act in certain situations. According to Article 33 of the ECHR, states can request that the ECHR ruling on rights violations. It occurs regularly. To maintain the status quo, the court has the authority to issue "interim measures" The United Kingdom has agreed to sue another state under Article 41 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Of course, suing another state is political. This pandemic, on the other hand, is about more than just health. The protection of human life is a political priority. Human rights advocates should make use of the tools at their disposal.1. What is the editorial's main point?2. Is there evidence to back up the main point? Give three examples.3. How would you describe the editorial board's argument?4. Comment on the language and words used in the reading material.5. Were you persuaded to believe the claims by the material's ideas? Why or why not?
Answer:
di ko Po Alam sorry I don't know
