if you want to remove an article from website contact us from top.

    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...

    Source : www.answerout.com

    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

    Source : quizlet.com

    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?

    Source : caselaw.findlaw.com

    Do you want to see answer or more ?
    James 14 day ago
    4

    Guys, does anyone know the answer?

    Click For Answer