Part A Which inference can be made about Daniel Williams based on "Healing a Wounded Heart: Daniel Hale Williams"?

Dr. Williams was not only a skilled doctor, but he was also a kind and thoughtful person.

Dr. Williams had people who could not afford to pay in mind when he opened Provident Hospital.

Dr. Williams knew exactly what to do when faced with the prospect of performing heart surgery.

Dr. Williams became very wealthy and famous but never lost sight of his purpose.
Question 2
Part B

Which evidence from the passage best supports the answer in Part A?

"Provident was the first hospital in the United States in which black and white doctors worked together to care for all patients, regardless of race."

"Dr. Williams was called in. The doctor reassured the patient with his calm, dignified manner."

"Williams was confident that he could help. But then he saw the wound—it went deep into the chest, perhaps into the heart."

"Daniel Hale Williams was not foolish—on the contrary, he was very careful."

some skiers think very highly of their sport.

that should be it i had the same question

brainlest me plz

explanation:

rudy is the nazi ideal, unfortunately for the nazis his ideal comes in the form of jesse the complete opposite of those who embrace the idea of white supremacy. over the course of the novel, rudy learns that he wants nothing to do with the hitler youth, and because of this his parents are forced to make a bargain; rudy's father is forced into the military, so that his son can remain home.   both liesel and hans influence that young man that rudy becomes. following han's example, rudy puts aside his own hunger to risk his life so that the jewish prisoners might have bread to eat.

the answer that is correct is the last option.

to eliminate ambiguous remote or broad reference it is necessary to focus on anaphoric reference. by definition "anaphoric reference means that a word in a text refers back to other ideas in the text for its meaning." the references should be clear and leave no room for ambiguity.

in the first case the pronoun it probably refers to the car but it has not been mentioned before so we should replace it for the car. in doing so the statement becomes clear.

in sentence number   two   the pronoun he refers to charles dickens the author. yet, the first half of the sentence is about the book a tale of two cities. to repair this it would be better to rephrase the first half : after i read   a tale of two cities by dickens, he so as to remove the remote reference.