Question

relationships, and nuances in word meanings. you continue to focus on the response article. as you read it, you realize its well - written. you start asking yourself different focus questions to determine why. \boomers. karens. debbie downers. we all know them. we all despise them. these are the ones whose lifes calling is to rid education of the plague known as technology. they insist on a return to \the good old days,\ where math is calculated by abacus, and you have to know how to calculate by hand $a^{2}+b^{2}=c^{2}$ because \you wont always have a calculator.\ this is the generation that champions mindlessly staring at textbooks from 1965 while copying word - for - word on thousands of sheets of loose - leaf paper that will most likely end up in the cavernous depths of a backpack next to a moldy peanut butter sandwich while a child insists, i turned it in. you must have lost it.\ after reading the article, how would you explain the authors point of view as it relates to the tone? the author employs a respectful tone to illustrate that elders in a community deserve admiration. the author employs a sarcastic tone to showcase the outdated methods of education before technology. the author employs a neutral tone to acknowledge both sides of an argument regarding technology. the author employs a straightforward tone to prove that all technology should be banned in educational settings.

Explanation:

The author uses terms like "plague known as technology" and mocks the idea of returning to old - fashioned methods (e.g., using abacus, copying from 1965 textbooks). This is sarcastic. The author is not respectful (as the first option suggests), not neutral (as there is a clear negative view of the old - fashioned education methods), and the last option is incorrect as the author is against the old methods, not banning technology.

Answer:

The author employs a sarcastic tone to showcase the outdated methods of education before technology.