Nowadays, more people are aware of the bad effects of junk food. Many people now blame companies that produce junk food for our
nation's weight problems. Junk food companies are scrambling to save their reputations. One way to reach this goal is to sponsor
community events and activities, such as sports games. Sponsoring an event means the company helps pay for the event. It also means the company gets to put its logo on all items connected with the event. By putting their logos on sports uniforms and other items, the
companies can increase their presence in people's minds. In other words, sponsoring such events allows companies to advertise their
products. Companies can also claim that they are helping to keep kids healthy by supporting sports and other healthy activities. For
example, in Australia, a soft drink company has sponsored under-13 rugby, junior soccer, and junior basketball school tournaments. All
this sponsoring goes against the company's policy of not advertising to kids.

A. More people are blaming junk food companies for our nation's weight proplems. To improve their reputations, companies that produce soft drinks and other junk food are sponsoring children's sport and other activities

Explanation:

First, we need to observe and acknowledge two parts in this text - cause and effect - and the relation between them.

So, the first part is cause; it states that people are starting to blame junk food companies for weight problems.

The second part is the effect of this cause; these companies are starting to sponsor children's sports activities.

There is also this linking sentence that explains why the companies do that: "Junk food companies are scrambling to save their reputations".

Now we can fully grasp this cause-effect relation and the reason for it.

Regarding this, answer C and D don't summarize this excerpt's idea, while answer B doesn't show cause-effect relation; it just states two things, without the connection.

i think the life is invaluable.

you can also say immeasurable.

no,

explanation:

because they are likely to use their corrupted thought process to get what they want. not what is better for the another reason they shouldn't is since they abused their rights as a us citizen they should have certain rights stripped away from them as punishment, such as the right to vote. due to the lack of proper behavior exemplified   from their actions , it would be hard for people to trust them because of their criminal record.   either directly (in the case of a referendum or ballot initiative) or indirectly (by choosing lawmakers and law enforcers). in fact, we do have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws that we require people to meet before they are given a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. people who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don’t meet those standards. and those crimes can include such “non-violent felonies” as, say, treason and espionage, or voter fraud and public corruption, white-collar crime and felonies merely “concerning drugs” — like trafficking in fentanyl-laced heroin and selling it to minors, for example. if you’re not willing to follow the law, then you should not have a role in making the law for everyone else.