This is so irrelavent but i just had the best caprisun ever ‍♀️. ( aka , free points )

Padma has written a paper on the effects of the black death, a plague that struck europe in 1347 and killed millions of people. she focused on three major results of the plague: • a smaller population after the plague led to higher wages and greater independence for workers. • the power of the catholic church weakened because so many members had died and others had lost their faith. • a lack of farm workers led more people to raise livestock rather than planting crops, changing the european diet. read her conclusion: it does not seem right to say that an experience as horrifying as the black death had any “good” sides. still, the changes that followed the plague improved the lives of peasants. people who had previously lived in poverty, forced to work for a single employer, now had higher wages and the freedom to change jobs. even so, the continent had been devastated and would take many years to recover. which statement best evaluates her conclusion? a. the conclusion effectively summarizes all the writer’s main points. b. the conclusion is engaging, but it introduces an unnecessary new idea. c. the conclusion is engaging, but only summarizes one of the writer’s points. d. the conclusion is engaging but it does not summarize any of the writer’s main points.