what components should be included in a persuasive letter? check all that apply. an apology a claim supporting reasons a legal disclaimer supporting evidence a counterclaim and a rebuttal
James
Guys, does anyone know the answer?
get what components should be included in a persuasive letter? check all that apply. an apology a claim supporting reasons a legal disclaimer supporting evidence a counterclaim and a rebuttal from EN Bilgi.
What components should be included in a persuasive letter? Check all that apply.
What components should be included in a persuasive letter? Check all that apply. an apology a claim supporting reasons a legal disclaimer supporting evidence a counterclaim and a rebuttal None
Asked by mkwilliams
english answered out
What components should be included in a persuasive letter? Check all that apply.
an apology a claim supporting reasons a legal disclaimer supporting evidence a counterclaim and a rebuttal None
6 months ago
Answers
The answers on E2020 areB. a claimC. supporting reasonsE. supporting evidenceF. a counterclaim and a rebuttal(I just completed the Test Review with a 100%)
Answerd by drraj
6 months ago 105 4.8
Related Questions
Which idea from the passage is an OPINION? A) Many men died at Gettysb...
What is postmodernism?
"Love in the Moonlight"
Why does the author use only Victor’s information in this passage? Vic...
What became common during the postwar era? A. radio B. women working o...
Read the passage from "Christabel."
Underline the preposition in the following sentences. 5. The incas kep...
Thomas Gray has sometimes been classified as a pre-Romantic writer. Ro...
Unit Test Review Flashcards
Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards terms like What is the purpose of a persuasive letter? to demonstrate the steps in a process to inform readers about meaningful research to convince readers to take action or support a cause to explain a societal problem that needs to be addressed, How do text features contribute to a text's structure? Check all that apply., What components should be included in a persuasive letter? Check all that apply. and more.
Unit Test Review
4.5 29 Reviews
What is the purpose of a persuasive letter?
to demonstrate the steps in a process
to inform readers about meaningful research
to convince readers to take action or support a cause
to explain a societal problem that needs to be addressed
Click card to see definition 👆
to convince readers to take action or support a cause
Click again to see term 👆
How do text features contribute to a text's structure? Check all that apply.
Click card to see definition 👆
by offering supplemental information
by providing organization
by reinforcing ideas
Click again to see term 👆
1/15 Created by ianmiller001
Terms in this set (15)
What is the purpose of a persuasive letter?
to demonstrate the steps in a process
to inform readers about meaningful research
to convince readers to take action or support a cause
to explain a societal problem that needs to be addressed
to convince readers to take action or support a cause
How do text features contribute to a text's structure? Check all that apply.
by offering supplemental information
by providing organization
by reinforcing ideas
What components should be included in a persuasive letter? Check all that apply.
a claim supporting reasons supporting evidence
a counterclaim and a rebuttal
Which sentence is appropriate for a formal e-mail?
Healthy alternatives should be added to the vending machines to promote good health.
Which line best highlights Frodo's loyal nature?
[H]e realized suddenly that he loved the old hobbit dearly.
Read the persuasive conclusion.
Gardening can enhance lives and provide nourishment. Time spent outside in a garden boosts the body's immune system, and a garden's harvest can be a healthy, cost-saving supplement to any diet.
Which sentence best completes this conclusion?
Consider starting your own garden with some of your favorite vegetable seeds.
Read the graph.
According to the graph, which of the following occupations has the highest employment level?
cashiers
Look at the excerpt from "How to Think Like a Researcher," a chapter from How to Find Out Anything.
More to our purpose, we need to ask answerable questions for the eminently practical reason that if a question has no end, neither does the research. Pursuing an open-ended question can be a fool's errand. So, to become a skilled researcher, step number one is learning how to craft the answerable question.
______________
To become a skilled researcher,
step number one is learning how to
craft the answerable question.
_______________
Say you're a reporter for a business magazine and your editor wants to run an article on computer executive compensation. The editor asks you to find out if computer executives are overpaid. This is a great idea for a magazine article. It would probably make for a nifty feature in any number of business and tech magazines.
What text feature does this excerpt include?
a callout
How do the graphs in "Career Planning for High Schoolers." contribute to the content?
by providing data about careers and annual mean wages
Which excerpt from "Career Planning for High Schoolers" best shows that the author's purpose is to inform the reader?
About two-thirds of high school graduates from the class of 2013 enrolled in college that fall, according to BLS . . .
Sign up and see the remaining cards. It’s free!
Boost your grades with unlimited access to millions of flashcards, games and more.
Continue with Google
Continue with Facebook
Already have an account?
Sets with similar terms
Analyzing a Procedural Text: How to Find Out…
8 terms lolnicoleiguess
Reading Strategies (440)
9 terms busyinidaho
13. Test (Unit 3) - 56.0%
25 terms ygnj
Reading in the content area
56 terms tori_petrak
Sets found in the same folder
unit test 80
25 terms yarii3
Part 2: Summarizing an Author's Viewpoint in…
14 terms sandra_luna64
Unit Test for The first half of the Twentieth…
29 terms Eduardo_Mora7
Comparing and Contrasting Two Versions of The…
14 terms jayciewhitworth
Other Quizlet sets
Unit 6 fill in the blank
20 terms cg_benton
Wizard of Oz for History
13 terms reaganlesmeister
astronomy final exam
197 terms Kaydence_Shepardson
Psyc 100- Chapter 11, 12, 15, & 16
38 terms eborde1
Related questions
QUESTION
Define reflective SQ4R method and be sure you understand what each step means.
4 answers QUESTION
what type of disorder is Parkinson's disease
15 answers QUESTION
how does Steinbeck convey lennies animal like qualities
14 answers QUESTION
The approach firms take to convince environmentally concerned consumers that their products are environmentally sound and thus reap huge rewards is referred to as
3 answers 1/4
FESTO CORPORATION v. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO LTD SMC SMC
Case opinion for US Federal Circuit FESTO CORPORATION v. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO LTD SMC SMC. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.
...
FESTO CORPORATION V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO LTD SMC SMC
FESTO CORPORATION v. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO LTD SMC SMC
Reset A A Font size: Print
United States Court of Appeals,Federal Circuit.
FESTO CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO., LTD., a/k/a SMC Corporation, and SMC Pneumatics, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 95-1066.
Decided: November 29, 2000
Before MAYER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MICHEL, PLAGER, LOURIE, CLEVENGER, RADER, SCHALL, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges. Charles R. Hoffmann, Hoffmann & Baron, LLP, of Syosset, New York, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Gerald T. Bodner, Glenn T. Henneberger, and Anthony E. Bennett. Arthur I. Neustadt, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C., of Arlington, Virginia, argued for defendants-appellants. Of counsel on the brief were Charles L. Gholz, and Robert T. Pous. Also of counsel on the brief was James B. Lampert, Hale and Dorr, of Boston, Massachusetts. J. Michael Jakes, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae American Intellectual Property Law Association. With him on the brief was Louis T. Pirkey, President, of Arlington, Virginia. Of counsel on the brief was Joseph R. Re, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, L.L.P., of Newport Beach, California. Frederick A. Lorig, Bright & Lorig, of Los Angeles, California, for amicus curiae Litton Systems, Inc. Of counsel on the brief were John G. Roberts, Jr. and Catherine E. Stetson, Hogan & Hartson L.L.P., of Washington, DC. Also of counsel on the brief were Rory J. Radding, Pennie & Edmonds L.L.P., of New York, New York; and Stanton T. Lawrence, III and Carl P. Bretscher, Pennie & Edmonds L.L.P., of Washington, DC. William P. Atkins, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro LLP, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae, The Patent, Trademark & Copyright Section of The Bar Association of The District of Columbia. With him on the brief were Kendrew H. Colton, Michael A. Conley, Shamita D. Etienne-Cummings and Barbara M. Flaherty. Roddy M. Bullock, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for amicus curiae The Procter & Gamble Company. Morgan Chu, Irell & Manella LLP, of Los Angeles, California, for amicus curiae Hewlett-Packard Company. Of counsel on the brief were Perry M. Goldberg and Laura W. Brill. Christopher A. Hughes, Morgan & Finnegan, L.L.P., of New York, New York, for amici curiae International Business Machines Corporation; Eastman Kodak Company; and Ford Motor Company. Also on the brief was Mark J. Abate. Of counsel on the brief were Frederick T. Boehm, Kevin M. Jordan, Pryor A. Garnett and Mark F. Chadurjian, IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York. Also of counsel on the brief was J. Jeffrey Hawley, Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, New York; and Roger L. May, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan. Jonathan M. Harris, Conley, Rose & Tayon, P.C., of Houston, Texas, for amicus curiae Houston Intellectual Property Law Association. Of counsel on the brief was James W. Repass, Fulbright & Jaworski, of Houston, Texas.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts that Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd. (also known as SMC Corporation) and SMC Pneumatics, Inc. (collectively, “SMC”) infringed U.S. Patent No. 4,354,125 (the “Stoll patent”) and U.S. Patent No. B1 3,779,401 (the “Carroll patent”), both owned by Festo Corporation (“Festo”), under the doctrine of equivalents. We took the case en banc to resolve certain issues relating to the doctrine of equivalents that remained in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997). Specifically, we asked the parties to brief the following five questions for rehearing en banc:
1. For the purposes of determining whether an amendment to a claim creates prosecution history estoppel, is “a substantial reason related to patentability,” Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 33, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997), limited to those amendments made to overcome prior art under § 102 and § 103, or does “patentability” mean any reason affecting the issuance of a patent?
2. Under Warner-Jenkinson, should a “voluntary” claim amendment-one not required by the examiner or made in response to a rejection by an examiner for a stated reason-create prosecution history estoppel?
3. If a claim amendment creates prosecution history estoppel, under Warner-Jenkinson what range of equivalents, if any, is available under the doctrine of equivalents for the claim element so amended?
4. When “no explanation [for a claim amendment] is established,” Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 33, 117 S.Ct. 1040, thus invoking the presumption of prosecution history estoppel under Warner-Jenkinson, what range of equivalents, if any, is available under the doctrine of equivalents for the claim element so amended?
5. Would a judgment of infringement in this case violate Warner-Jenkinson 's requirement that the application of the doctrine of equivalents “is not allowed such broad play as to eliminate [an] element in its entirety,” 520 U.S. at 29, 117 S.Ct. 1040. In other words, would such a judgment of infringement, post Warner-Jenkinson, violate the “all elements” rule?
Guys, does anyone know the answer?