Josh watched television all day yesterday. Is the correct answer, hope this helps.
The one that is correct in here is the second option because in "our town" <span>Crowell delivers the paper in Act 2 and his brother, Joe delivers it in Act1, So Joe is not anymore the paperboy in the second one </span>
Answer:
Louise Carpenter was gripping a desk, her knuckles white.
Explanation:
The question above is related to the story entitled, "Object Lesson," which was written by<em> Ellery Queen (a pseudonym). </em>
The story centers on the character of Ellery, as he was called by Miss Carpenter to have a speech in class regarding<em> "Notorious Criminals I Have Known." </em>This came about when Miss Carpenter knew that three of his students in class were responsible for a juvenile crime she witnessed. However, on the day of the speech, Miss Carpenter noticed that <u>someone stole her $7 inside her envelop.</u>
As Ellery was searching the different places where the suspect might have placed the $7, "<em>Louise Carpenter was gripping a desk, her knuckles white." </em>This causes uncertainty on the reader because<u> it doesn't give a clear sign whether the money will be found or not</u>.
Louise Carpenter's action shows that she is <em>"anticipating to be let down."</em> This means that she, somehow, figured out that <u>Ellery won't be able to find the suspect and money because they only have a few minutes left</u> <em>(4 and 1/2 minutes, to be exact)</em>.<em> </em>
This question refers to the article "Do Juvenile Killers Deserve Life Behind Bars?" by Nina Totenberg.
In this article, Totenberg discusses whether life in prison is too harsh a punishment for juvenile killers. The author does not take a position on this matter, and instead focuses on presenting arguments that describe both sides of the question. The main purpose of the author is to encourage readers to think about the subject because legislation needs to be passed soon, and this is a difficult question that deserves consideration. She shows how important this matter is when she says:
<em>"Two years ago, the court used the same rationale when it struck down the penalty of life without parole for nonhomicide crimes committed by juveniles. But in Tuesday's cases, the court faces the question of life without parole in homicide cases... the big question before the Supreme Court on Tuesday is whether life without the possibility of parole is itself an unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment when it is applied to juveniles."</em>
