The last sentence of the first paragraph (“That . . . month’s rent”) primarily serves to

The last sentence of the first paragraph (“That . . . month’s rent”) primarily serves to:

According to the complete question, we can see that there is a narration where the details about how an agent scammed an author is told.

An anecdote is a narration about the real events which happened to somebody, using narrative techniques.

The narrator tells the readers that the $61.20 which was scammed was more money than her mother paid for rent.

As a result of this, the last sentence shows how the anecdotal evidence is used to support a claim.

Therefore, the correct answer is option C  

Read more here:

link

Hi, you've asked an incomplete question. The remaining part of the question reads;

the first paragraph;

I spent my teens and much of my twenties collecting printed rejections. Early on, my mother lost $61.20—a reading fee charged by a so-called agent to look at one of my unpublished stories. No one had told us that agents weren’t supposed to get any money upfront, weren’t supposed to be paid until they sold your work. Then they were to take ten percent of whatever the work earned. Ignorance is expensive. That $61.20 was more money back then than my mother paid for a month’s rent.

The last sentence of the first paragraph (“That . . . month’s rent”) primarily serves to

A. justify an action by invoking an ethical principle

B. clarify a point by defining an ambiguous term

C. show how anecdotal evidence supports a claim

D. provide meaningful context for a revealing statistic

E. demonstrate that a common practice has harmful effect

D. provide a meaningful context for a revealing statistic

Explanation:

By saying, "That $61.20 was more money back then than my mother paid for a month’s rent" the narrator had revealed a very interesting statistic about the value of money back then.

In other words, the context surrounding the statement helps the average reader quickly understand that a month's rent used to be lesser than $61.20; very interesting statistics at that.

safety professionals realize that high-dexterity gloves result in increased safety and job performance. corporate managers know that increased safety reduces costs while increased performance enhances productivity, both of which boost the bottom line. that being said, why do we still see so many work sites where gloves are not mandated ppe or where gloves are mandated but compliance falls short of expectations? after all, the most important tools for every employee are his brains, eyes, and hands--he can't work without all three of them functioning properly.

hard hats and safety glasses top the list of required ppe at most work sites, but gloves fall to a distant third or fourth. and even when gloves are mandated, they're often found on the ground more than on employees' hands. why is that?

the reason is that lack of hand dexterity has historically made gloves too cumbersome to work in. if an employee can't adequately control the tools he or she is working with--if he can't feel the details of the metal pipe, wood beam, parcel package, machine screw, airplane wing, concrete block, pine log, steel girder, or engine part that he's handling--then the gloves themselves pose an even higher risk of injury than not wearing any gloves at all.

the lack of mandated hand protection (and the lack of compliance when it is mandated) is a direct result of traditional gloves' preventing workers from effectively and safely performing their jobs. if linda's gloves are too cumbersome to allow her to position a set of steel springs with one hand and pneumatically staple them to a mattress frame with the other hand, she's just not going to wear them. can you blame her?

in a nutshell, the lack of dexterity in gloves has prevented them from becoming universally required and accepted hand protection. and that's a sad thing, because no matter how talented you are at the job you perform, you can't work with injured hands.

the answer is c teaching students and collaborating with teachers on instructional content.