Read the excerpts from “Take the Tortillas Out of Your Poetry” and “Speaking Arabic.” My friend had concluded that if he took his language and culture out of his poetry, he stood a better chance of receiving a fellowship. He took out his native language, the poetic patois of our reality, the rich mixture of Spanish, English, pachuco and street talk which we know so well. In other words, he took the tortillas out of his poetry, which is to say he took the soul out of his poetry.

At a neighborhood fair in Texas, somewhere between the German Oom-pah Sausage Stand and the Mexican Gorditas booth, I overheard a young man say to his friend, “I wish I had a heritage. Sometimes I feel—so lonely for one.” And the tall American trees were dangling their thick branches right down over his head.

Which best states how the structures of the excerpts differ?
Anaya structures his excerpt as an anecdote, while Nye structures her excerpt as a rhetorical appeal.
Anaya structures his excerpt as an analysis, while Nye structures her excerpt as an observation.
Anaya structures his excerpt as an observation, while Nye structures her excerpt as an analysis.
Anaya structures his excerpt as a rhetorical appeal, while Nye structures her excerpt as an anecdote.

How does dr. king's understanding of "outsider" compare to the understanding of the writers of "a call for unity"? question 2 options: dr. king agrees with the clergymen that "outsiders" should not be involved in local conflicts because they makes things worse. dr. king defines himself as an "outsider," but the clergymen think he is an "insider." the clergymen define "outsider" as anyone anywhere who disagrees with their point of view and "insider" as anyone who agrees with them. the clergymen believe anyone outside of their city is an "outsider," but dr. king believes anyone in the united states is part of one common community.

Ineed ,someone me on this and my other questions

Read the passage from animal farm. "that was part of the arrangement! " cried squealer. "jones's shot only grazed him. i could show you this in his own writing, if you were able to read it. the plot was for snowball, at the critical moment, to give the signal for flight and leave the field to the enemy. and he very nearly succeeded—i will even say, comrades, he would have succeeded if it had not been for our heroic leader, comrade napoleon. do you not remember how, just at the moment when jones and his men had got inside the yard, snowball suddenly turned and fled, and many animals followed him? and do you not remember, too, that it was just at that moment, when panic was spreading and all seemed lost, that comrade napoleon sprang forward with a cry of 'death to humanity! ' and sank his teeth in jones's leg? surely you remember that, comrades? " exclaimed squealer, frisking from side to side. now when squealer described the scene so graphically, it seemed to the animals that they did remember it. at any rate, they remembered that at the critical moment of the battle snowball had turned to flee. but boxer was still a little uneasy. how does the characterization of squealer support the author’s purpose? squealer's dramatic accusations draw parallels between him and stalin’s propagandists. squealer's uncertainty shows that he is not a reliable ally of napoleon and is ineffective with messaging. squealer's ability to get the animals to listen to him shows that any animal can rise to be a leader in time. squealer's humble interactions with the animals reflect the importance of equality and cooperation.