Answer:lesbian,gay, bisexual, transgender, queer
Explanation:
Sarcasm is an ironic or satirical remark tempered by humor. Mainly, people use it to say the opposite of what's true to make someone look or feel foolish. For example, let's say you see someone struggling to open a door and you ask them, "Do you want help?" If they reply by saying, "No thanks. I'm really enjoying the challenge," you'll know they're being sarcastic. Sarcasm is all about the context and tone of voice, which is why it works better verbally. It's something you'll know when you hear it.
Answer:
c.
Explanation:
First, "went dead" does not make sense. it sounds like the whole thing is present and not past tense. so its c. sorry if I'm wrong
The accurate comparison is that from Beowulf's perspective, Grendel is a villain, but from Grendel's perspective, Hrothgar and the D**es are the villains.
<h3>Why do Grendel and Beowulf disagree about who the Visions are?</h3>
- Beowulf believes that Grendel is the villain because he causes the suffering of humans.
- Grendel believes that humans are the villains because it was they who invaded Grendel's region and tried to expel him.
Grendel is not a harmless creature and for that reason, when he feels threatened and has his habitat invaded by humans, he attacks them furiously and violently.
This shows that to Grendel, he is innocent, but to Beowulf and the other humans, Grendel is the villain.
Learn more about Beowulf:
brainly.com/question/14792164
#SPJ1
Answer:
- Roosevelt appeals to the emotions of the audience by referring to Hitler’s rise to power and the tragic consequences of his government.
- Roosevelt appeals to the logic of the audience by noting that the interests of the people are not considered in a one-party government.
- Roosevelt appeals to the logic of the audience by explaining reasons why the amendment would allow the Soviets to ignore a human right.
In this excerpt, Eleanor Roosevelt explains why a compromise on human rights issues is often equivalent to nullifying the protection. She does this by first describing an issue in which compromising (with the Soviets) would eliminate the protection of the right. She also appeals to the logic of the listeners when she explains that in one-party systems, the rights of citizens are often ignored. Finally, she emphasizes this fact by reminding the reader of Hitler's regime and its consequences.