Please clarify the question. Tell us what you want to know.
But it seems it is also the least defensible of circumstances.
No affirmative action is morally defensible.
A defensible thesis is a statement that can be supported with evidence and reasoning. It should be clear, specific, and arguable to encourage critical thinking and discussion. Adequate research and analysis are required to back up a defensible thesis.
no
There are 4.
Oh, dude, let me break it down for you. The statement "There should be no minimum voting age" is definitely arguable, like, come on, people can argue about anything these days. But is it defensible? Well, that's a whole other story. So, the answer is D) It is arguable but not defensible. Like, you can argue it all day long, but defending it might be a bit tricky.
A defensible thesis is one that is supported by logical reasoning, credible evidence, and thorough analysis. It should be well-researched, clearly stated, and able to withstand scrutiny and counterarguments. Additionally, a defensible thesis should contribute something new to the existing body of knowledge or offer a fresh perspective on the topic.
It is both arguable and defensible.
Rational
Physical features such as mountains, rivers, and oceans can serve as natural barriers that make an area defensible. These features can be difficult for enemies to traverse, providing protection to those located within. High ground, dense forests, and rough terrain can also make an area more defensible by impeding the progress of potential attackers.
1.14 is rational.
4.6 is rational.