Answer:
The Eloi lacked most of the qualities that members of the Victorian aristocratic class prided themselves on and considered superior, such as intelligence, strength, and creativity. The Time Traveller initially tries to explain away the apparent contradiction between the Eloi’s successe as the surviving species and their lack of intelligence using the theory of evolution. Being unaware of the true nature of the Morlocks, he theorizes that the Eloi have adapted to a life without danger or disease and have no need for any kind of work.
Wells explains how a human from his own time who is intelligent, strong, and had emotions would be a hindrance to the existing social order of the world of the Eloi. In this way he clarifies to the audience that evolution is just a response to the changing surroundings, which would not necessarily make a species better; evolution would only make a species better suited to its environment. He thereby strongly critiques social Darwinism, which based many of its principals on a flawed understanding of the theory of evolution. Instead, he suggest that the successful species is not necessarily the “best” species. In the same way, he suggest that the aristocratic class at the top of the social order is not necessarily better than the working class, intellectually or biologically.
Explanation:
<span>A verb, is a word (part of speech) that is showing an action (bring, read, walk, run, learn), an occurrence (happen, become), or a state of being (be, exist, stand).</span>
The anecdote in the paragraph 4 that contributed to the explanation of Caesar is that:
- Julius thought highly of himself.
<h3>What is an anecdote?</h3>
An anecdote is a short amusing real account of a person or individual.
According to the complete text, in the paragraph 4, Caesar thought of himself as being worth more than anything.
This goes about illustrating to us how the author demonstrates to us of how highly Julius thought of himself.
Read more about <em>anecdote</em> here:
brainly.com/question/24629074
Answer:
The role of the state in our lifestyles, most people believe, is the secret to a healthy life. While some should claim that eating whatever we choose is independence of selection Based on the perspective of sight, nevertheless, the function of the state in influencing what we eat is either a forced intrusion or a brazen intervention with the free will of Individuals.
While we receive a strong point for our diets being regulated by the country most evidence indicates that the administration's intervention with our nutrition has demonstrated little if any impact.
And of all the fat individuals in the nation with medical conditions, the most encouraging statement that individuals are in favour with the government regulating what we eat is the most encouraging one.
For decades, the central administration has told citizens what they can and should not bring in their bloodstream. If it's Tran's fat and nicotine, sugar or liquor, refined or sodium, so others believe they know best, politicians and authorities pick stuff off our plate.
