Believing that intelligence is fixed from birth (ie the "nature" argument) can be a dangerous and self-defeating way to think, according to the author of the Counterpoint essay. Are there any similar problems in believing that a person's intelligence is shaped mainly by their
environment? In an essay of 300 words or more, argue whether there are any dangers to attributing a person's intelligence mainly to
socioeconomic factors. Cite and debate specific points made by both authors in your writing.

There are many dangers in believing that your intelligence is fixed. It can cause you to give up in a lot of the things you do. It causes you to not want to reach to your full potential. Or it can cause a person to make a mistake and change everything about themselves or their environment. While they may think that it's for the better, it will be revealed to them later on that it's not for the better at all. It can then cause them to not believe in themselves in anything. Being extremely mentally harmful. Believing that there's nothing you can do about your intelligence can truly eat away at you internally. Questioning why you should do anything is what can result from it. So it's best to just live how a lot of people live and make the most out of the intelligence that you have. To not think about others and just go with what makes you happy and what you like to do. That's the way we must all go about life. Working on ourselves, constantly working to improve what we want to improve in ourselves. Having that pure focus on just improving ourselves is what makes us better humans as a society. If we all just were to focus on ourselves and how we're improving as people, we wouldn't have a metric ton of the issue's we have today. If we all were to just stick on our own lane, we wouldn't have political issues, racial issues, sexist issues, or any kind of issues. Since no one would be getting angry with anyone since everyone would be just worrying about themselves. If we all were to live just trying to improve our own intelligence, then we could (in theory) live in a perfect society.

Explanation:

elise is writing a literary analysis of a biographical essay about emily dickinson.

which of the following should elise use in order to provide a strong claim statement in the introduction to her analysis?

a.  

“a life apart” by julia golding maintains that emily dickenson wrote over a thousand poems during her life.

i would think its c but i'm not sure