Read the excerpt from "Remembering to Never Forget: Dominican Republic’s ‘Parsley Massacre’” by Mark Memmott. Passage A:

This week, people from around the world are expected to gather in the Dominican Republic for a "Border of Lights” commemoration that aims to "honor a tragedy long forgotten, and unknown to many people.”

Passage B:

Trujillo, as the Border of Lights website explains, fed and nurtured anti-Haitian sentiment and created an atmosphere that still excludes ethnic Haitians from becoming part of "the Dominican melting pot.”

The method his soldiers used in 1937 to try to identify those who would be killed was cruelly unique. When confronting someone in the lands along the border with Haiti, they would hold up a sprig of parsley and ask what it was. If the person responded by trilling the "r” in perejil (Spanish for parsley), he would be free to go. Anyone who didn't trill the "r” was thought to be a Haitian Creole speaker—and was likely to be killed.

Read the excerpt from a supporting opinion of the supreme court’s ruling in plessy v. ferguson, 1896. laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power. how does this relate to the premises of brown v. board of education? the brown case addresses whether state legislatures are equipped to judge the quality of education offered at segregated schools. the brown case addresses whether authorities believe that one race is inferior to another when creating public schools. the brown case addresses whether these laws inherently deny certain citizens equal protection under the law. the brown case addresses the legality of using police power to monitor public places separated by race.

According to the author, where can we find the answer to our nation’s “most pressing problem”? does that seem logical?

Will give if correct read the passage first of all, if someone says your dream is impossible, they’re wrong. you can’t prove that something is impossible-all you know is that [it] hasn’t been done yet. people said no one could scale mount everest, but in 1953, sir edmund hilary and tenzing norgay gazed down upon the world from its summit. people said that man could not fly, but in 1903, orville and wilbur wright made the first sustained powered flight in a heavier-than-air machine. people said, “okay, we admit that someone could climb mount everest, and we admit that man has learned to fly, but no one will ever, ever walk on the face of the moon.” if we can send three men a quarter of a million miles away and bring them home safely, is there any great task we cannot accomplish? which identifies the textual evidence that best supports the claim: the authors purpose is to persuade? a: the author shares historical information about the wright brothers. b: the author states that men have walked the moon. c: the author states that others who think your dreams are impossible are wrong. d: the author wants to know what tasks we cannot accomplish.