How do the historical details in this passage support the authors' claim? In sugar changed the world

Which excerpt from tinker v. des moines shows how precedent support an argument? a. "as we shall discuss, the wearing of armbands in the circumstances of this case was entirely divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it. it was closely akin to 'pure speech' which, we have repeatedly held, is entitled to comprehensive protection under the first amendment. cf. cox v. louisiana, 379 u.s. 536, 555 (1965); adderley v. florida, 385 u.s. 39 (1966)." b. "while the absence of obscene remarks or boisterous and loud disorder perhaps justifies the court's statement that the few armband students did not actually 'disrupt' the classwork, i think the record overwhelmingly shows that the armbands did exactly what the elected school officials and principals foresaw they would." c. "i, for one, am not fully persuaded that school pupils are wise enough, even with this court's expert from washington, to run the 23,390 public school systems [n4] in our 50 states." d. "under our constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle, but not in fact. freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots."

Changing the sentence structure and how quickly events unfold in a story can affect which literally element?

How are the two arguments made in the passages different? a. the first passage claims that pets in class will children with health problems; the second passage says pets will make some health problems worse. b. the first passage claims that students’ nervousness will decrease around pets; the second says that students’ nervousness will increase around pets. c. the first passage claims that pets will make the teacher’s work easier by keeping students busy; the second passage says pets will make the teacher’s work harder. d. the first passage claims that pets in school will be good for kids’ mental health; the second passage says pets will be bad for kids’ mental health.