Here is a proposal that is sure to anger some people: Everyone— yes, everyone—should have a pet. I think we should require that everyone get a pet or else present a convincing reason why they can’t have one. There are almost too many arguments in favor of companion animals to list them all. The few arguments against pet ownership scarcely need to be mentioned.

First of all, a pet is good for your health. Many studies have shown the health-related benefits of pets. For example, people with heart problems have lower blood pressure when they’re petting a cat or dog. Seniors in long-term care facilities who feel sad and lonely find their spirits lifted by the arrival of pets.

Additionally, pets teach us important lessons about kindness and responsibility. When you have a pet, one fact cannot be avoided: That animal depends on you. It needs your love and care. It depends on you for its very life—for its food, its medical care, its shelter. Once you’ve cared for a loving animal, you are likely to treat human beings better as well. Every person who has a pet must care for it. Thus, all pet owners are caring people.
What’s more, countless animals need homes. It is an act of kindness to take in a homeless cat or dog.
But most important of all, pets teach us about love. They give love without reservation. They accept our love with gladness. They ask only for your attention. Imagine your pet patiently waiting at the window, its eyes glued on your front walk, its whole being focused on your arrival.

Think of the parrot that bobs its head and sings as you walk through the door, craning its neck for the touch of your fingers. Picture the cat that arches its back and rubs madly against your shins as it meows for its dinner, then climbs into your lap and fills the room with soft purring as you gently pet its head. Consider the sight of a dog, so devoted to you that it would give its life to help you, its tail wagging madly to see you, so overjoyed at the sound of your voice that it dances and barks.

And in the end, our pets have one final lesson to teach us—a lesson about loss. The pain of losing the beloved pet is the flip side of the coin of joy that the pet owner holds in his or her hand. We gain an acceptance and understanding of how beautiful and precious life truly is. We learn that all of our moments can be filled with joy if we only open our hearts to our pets. And we learn that love outlasts loss, which is the greatest legacy of the time we share with an animal.

14. Which of the following is the best indication that this passage is written in the first person?
The author uses the pronoun I.
The author reveals a character’s thoughts.
**The author is a nameless voice.
The author describes real-life events and people.

15. Which of the following is an example of faulty cause-and-effect reasoning in the editorial?

The few arguments against pet ownership scarcely need to be mentioned.
People with heart problems have lower blood pressure when they’re petting a cat or dog.
**Every person who has a pet must care for it. Thus, all pet owners are caring people.
Consider the sight of a dog so overjoyed at the sound of your voice that it dances and barks.

14 is incorrect.

15 is correct.

I agree with both of your answers.

Ahh -- I found the place where the author uses the pronoun "I." 14 is not C.

Ok THx

To determine the best indication that the passage is written in the first person, you can look for personal pronouns such as "I" or "me" that are used by the author to refer to themselves. In this passage, there are no instances of personal pronouns being used, so the correct answer would be "The author is a nameless voice."

To identify an example of faulty cause-and-effect reasoning in the editorial, you need to find a statement that makes an illogical or unsupported connection between two events or situations. In this passage, the statement "Every person who has a pet must care for it. Thus, all pet owners are caring people" falls into this category. It assumes that all individuals who care for pets are automatically caring people in general, without providing any evidence or logical reasoning to support this claim. Therefore, this statement is an example of faulty cause-and-effect reasoning.