Which statement is true of this excerpt from "totally like whatever, you know? "
"have they been, like, chopped down with the rest of the rain forest? or do we have, like, nothing to say? has society become so, like, totally . . i mean absolutely . . you know? that we've just gotten to the point where it's just, like . . whatever! "
a. the syntax used in these lines makes fun of the speaker and reader.
b. the syntax used in these lines has no effect on the speaker or reader.
c. the syntax used in these lines reflects the argument of the speaker.
d. the syntax used in these lines opposes the argument of the speaker.

The correct answer is C. The syntax in these lines reflects the argument of the speaker.

Explanation:

The excerpt we are analyzing here was taken from a poem by Taylor Mali. In his poem, Mali criticizes our generation's innability to say what they mean and to express themselves with proper syntax.

He shows the audience that people now think it is cool to sound as if you don't know what you are talking about. People transform their supposed-to-be declarative sentences into questions, always adding "you knows". They choose not to say the words that would purposefully express what they actually mean, but instead employ "likes" and "whatevers".

When the author employs the same syntax that he is criticizing, he is doing it to prove his point, to reflect his argument, in a fun way. At the end of the poem, he chooses to speak with proper syntax while asking the audience to do the same.

The poem in full is as follows:

In case you hadn’t noticed,

it has somehow become uncool

to sound like you know what you’re talking about?

Or believe strongly in what you’re saying?

Invisible question marks and parenthetical (you know?)’s

have been attaching themselves to the ends of our sentences?

Even when those sentences aren’t, like, questions? You know?

Declarative sentences—so-­‐called

because they used to, like, DECLARE things to be true, okay,

as opposed to other things are, like, totally, you know, not—

have been infected by a totally hip

and tragically cool interrogative tone? You know?

Like, don’t think I’m uncool just because I’ve noticed this;

this is just like the word on the street, you know?

It’s like what I’ve heard?

I have nothing personally invested in my own opinions, okay?

I’m just inviting you to join me in my uncertainty?

What has happened to our conviction?

Where are the limbs out on which we once walked?

Have they been, like, chopped down

with the rest of the rain forest?

Or do we have, like, nothing to say?

Has society become so, like, totally . . .

I mean absolutely . . . You know?

That we’ve just gotten to the point where it’s just, like . . .

whatever!

And so actually our disarticulation . . . ness

is just a clever sort of . . . thing

to disguise the fact that we’ve become

the most aggressively inarticulate generation

to come along since . . .

you know, a long, long time ago!

I entreat you, I implore you, I exhort you,

I challenge you: To speak with conviction.

To say what you believe in a manner that bespeaks

the determination with which you believe it.

Because contrary to the wisdom of the bumper sticker,

it is not enough these days to simply QUESTION AUTHORITY.

You have to speak with it, too.

the word that best matches the meaning of the expression "went to the big ocean" is died.

the goldfish died, which is why the father looks at the children mournfully. the "big ocean" is the father's way of saying fish heaven. he could have just said that the goldfish died, but this way, the children imagine the fish in a bigger, better place instead of just picturing a dead fish.

explanation:

penis

explanation:

weddwad