Crowdly
Add to Chrome
Іноземна мова ЗО
Looking for Іноземна мова ЗО test answers and solutions? Browse our comprehensive collection of verified answers for Іноземна мова ЗО at moodle.natc.org.ua.
Get instant access to accurate answers and detailed explanations for your course questions. Our community-driven platform helps students succeed!
You will hear the conversation between two friends. Decide if the statements are True or False.
5. Kimberly believes it is hard to succeed in show business.
You will hear the conversation between two friends. Decide if the statements are True or False.
4. Everyone in Kimberly`s theatre group is a professional.
You will hear the conversation between two friends. Decide if the statements are True or False.
3. Kimberly thinks acting can help Timothy.
You will hear the conversation between two friends. Decide if the statements are True or False.
2. Kemberly has not gained much from joining a theater group.
You will hear the conversation between two friends. Decide if the statements are True or False.
1. Timothy knew about Kimberly`s interest in the theater.
Read the letter and choose the best answer.
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to the article “Protecting Our Public Spaces”. In it the author claims that “all graffiti is vandalism, pure and simple, and offers no benefit to our public spaces.” I would like to point out that many people believe that graffiti is an form that can benefit our public spaces just as much as sculpture, fountains, or other, more accepted
People who object to graffiti usually do so more because of it is. They argue that posting graffiti in public places constitutes an illegal act of property damage. But the location of such graffiti should not prevent the images themselves from being considered genuine
I would argue that graffiti is the ultimate public art form. Spray paint is a medium unlike any other. Through graffiti, the entire world has become a canvas. No one has to pay admission or travel to a museum to see this kind of . The artists usually do not receive payment for their efforts. These works of dotting the urban landscape are available, free of charge, to everyone who passes by.
To be clear, I do not consider random words or names sprayed on stop signs to be . Plenty of graffiti is just vandalism, pure and simple. However, there is also graffiti that is breathtaking in its intricate detail, its realism, or its creativity.
Are these creators not artists just because they use a can of spray paint instead of a paintbrush, or because they cover the side of a building rather than a canvas?
To declare that all graffiti is vandalism, and nothing more, is an overly simplistic statement that I find out of place in such a thoughtful publication as your magazine. Furthermore, graffiti is not going anywhere, so we might as well find a way to live with it and enjoy its benefits. One option could be to make a percentage of public space, such as walls or benches in parks, open to graffiti artists. By doing this, the public might feel like part owners of these works of , rather than just the victims of a crime.
Regards,
Derrick Milton
5. Derrick Milton concludes his letter by
Read the letter and choose the best answer.
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to the article “Protecting Our Public Spaces”. In it the author claims that “all graffiti is vandalism, pure and simple, and offers no benefit to our public spaces.” I would like to point out that many people believe that graffiti is an form that can benefit our public spaces just as much as sculpture, fountains, or other, more accepted
People who object to graffiti usually do so more because of it is. They argue that posting graffiti in public places constitutes an illegal act of property damage. But the location of such graffiti should not prevent the images themselves from being considered genuine
I would argue that graffiti is the ultimate public art form. Spray paint is a medium unlike any other. Through graffiti, the entire world has become a canvas. No one has to pay admission or travel to a museum to see this kind of . The artists usually do not receive payment for their efforts. These works of dotting the urban landscape are available, free of charge, to everyone who passes by.
To be clear, I do not consider random words or names sprayed on stop signs to be . Plenty of graffiti is just vandalism, pure and simple. However, there is also graffiti that is breathtaking in its intricate detail, its realism, or its creativity.
Are these creators not artists just because they use a can of spray paint instead of a paintbrush, or because they cover the side of a building rather than a canvas?
To declare that all graffiti is vandalism, and nothing more, is an overly simplistic statement that I find out of place in such a thoughtful publication as your magazine. Furthermore, graffiti is not going anywhere, so we might as well find a way to live with it and enjoy its benefits. One option could be to make a percentage of public space, such as walls or benches in parks, open to graffiti artists. By doing this, the public might feel like part owners of these works of , rather than just the victims of a crime.
Regards,
Derrick Milton
4. In paragraph 4, Derrick Milton states, “Plenty of graffiti is just vandalism, pure and simple.” He most likely makes this statement in order to
Read the letter and choose the best answer.
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to the article “Protecting Our Public Spaces”. In it the author claims that “all graffiti is vandalism, pure and simple, and offers no benefit to our public spaces.” I would like to point out that many people believe that graffiti is an form that can benefit our public spaces just as much as sculpture, fountains, or other, more accepted
People who object to graffiti usually do so more because of it is. They argue that posting graffiti in public places constitutes an illegal act of property damage. But the location of such graffiti should not prevent the images themselves from being considered genuine
I would argue that graffiti is the ultimate public art form. Spray paint is a medium unlike any other. Through graffiti, the entire world has become a canvas. No one has to pay admission or travel to a museum to see this kind of . The artists usually do not receive payment for their efforts. These works of dotting the urban landscape are available, free of charge, to everyone who passes by.
To be clear, I do not consider random words or names sprayed on stop signs to be . Plenty of graffiti is just vandalism, pure and simple. However, there is also graffiti that is breathtaking in its intricate detail, its realism, or its creativity.
Are these creators not artists just because they use a can of spray paint instead of a paintbrush, or because they cover the side of a building rather than a canvas?
To declare that all graffiti is vandalism, and nothing more, is an overly simplistic statement that I find out of place in such a thoughtful publication as your magazine. Furthermore, graffiti is not going anywhere, so we might as well find a way to live with it and enjoy its benefits. One option could be to make a percentage of public space, such as walls or benches in parks, open to graffiti artists. By doing this, the public might feel like part owners of these works of , rather than just the victims of a crime.
Regards,
Derrick Milton
3.According to Derrick Milton, random words sprayed on stop signs are not
Read the letter and choose the best answer.
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to the article “Protecting Our Public Spaces”. In it the author claims that “all graffiti is vandalism, pure and simple, and offers no benefit to our public spaces.” I would like to point out that many people believe that graffiti is an form that can benefit our public spaces just as much as sculpture, fountains, or other, more accepted
People who object to graffiti usually do so more because of it is. They argue that posting graffiti in public places constitutes an illegal act of property damage. But the location of such graffiti should not prevent the images themselves from being considered genuine
I would argue that graffiti is the ultimate public art form. Spray paint is a medium unlike any other. Through graffiti, the entire world has become a canvas. No one has to pay admission or travel to a museum to see this kind of . The artists usually do not receive payment for their efforts. These works of dotting the urban landscape are available, free of charge, to everyone who passes by.
To be clear, I do not consider random words or names sprayed on stop signs to be . Plenty of graffiti is just vandalism, pure and simple. However, there is also graffiti that is breathtaking in its intricate detail, its realism, or its creativity.
Are these creators not artists just because they use a can of spray paint instead of a paintbrush, or because they cover the side of a building rather than a canvas?
To declare that all graffiti is vandalism, and nothing more, is an overly simplistic statement that I find out of place in such a thoughtful publication as your magazine. Furthermore, graffiti is not going anywhere, so we might as well find a way to live with it and enjoy its benefits. One option could be to make a percentage of public space, such as walls or benches in parks, open to graffiti artists. By doing this, the public might feel like part owners of these works of , rather than just the victims of a crime.
Regards,
Derrick Milton
2. Based on information in the
passage, it can be understood that the author of the article “Protecting Our
Public Spaces” apparently believes that graffiti
Read the letter and choose the best answer.
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to the article “Protecting Our Public Spaces”. In it the author claims that “all graffiti is vandalism, pure and simple, and offers no benefit to our public spaces.” I would like to point out that many people believe that graffiti is an form that can benefit our public spaces just as much as sculpture, fountains, or other, more accepted
People who object to graffiti usually do so more because of it is. They argue that posting graffiti in public places constitutes an illegal act of property damage. But the location of such graffiti should not prevent the images themselves from being considered genuine
I would argue that graffiti is the ultimate public art form. Spray paint is a medium unlike any other. Through graffiti, the entire world has become a canvas. No one has to pay admission or travel to a museum to see this kind of . The artists usually do not receive payment for their efforts. These works of dotting the urban landscape are available, free of charge, to everyone who passes by.
To be clear, I do not consider random words or names sprayed on stop signs to be . Plenty of graffiti is just vandalism, pure and simple. However, there is also graffiti that is breathtaking in its intricate detail, its realism, or its creativity.
Are these creators not artists just because they use a can of spray paint instead of a paintbrush, or because they cover the side of a building rather than a canvas?
To declare that all graffiti is vandalism, and nothing more, is an overly simplistic statement that I find out of place in such a thoughtful publication as your magazine. Furthermore, graffiti is not going anywhere, so we might as well find a way to live with it and enjoy its benefits. One option could be to make a percentage of public space, such as walls or benches in parks, open to graffiti artists. By doing this, the public might feel like part owners of these works of , rather than just the victims of a crime.
Regards,
Derrick Milton
1. In his letter, Derrick Milton argues that graffiti