"Without, the night was cold and wet, but in the small parlor of Lakesnam Villa the blinds were drawn and the fire burned brightly.", an excerpt from the exposition in "The Monkey's Paw.", the one piece of information you can infer about the story from this sentence is: D. There is a fire burning to heat and light a house, so the story is likely set in the past.
Enjoying poetry is probably not something that would
separate a person from broader culture because all people enjoy different
things. This would lead to the question,
then, “Why would all things separate people from each other?” If that were so, society would be separated
into tiny fragments based upon likes, which is not really the case when you
think about it. Within any group of
people, you will find each like different things—you will find artists who like
mountain climbing and those who don’t; you will find mountain climbers who like
knitting and those who don’t. If
anything, it would provide another element with which people could potentially
connect to another facet of the broader culture to which they belong. Because of that same rationale, the reading
of popular novels can definitely be seen to connect us. Additionally, even if some people liked a
popular novel and some people did not, they could have the opportunity to
connect in a conversation where they discussed their reasons for their
respective feelings for the novel. Thus,
literature of all types has a unifying element however small or insignificant
it may seem.
I would think the second one: <span>Who will read my writing?</span>
Regarding the difference between fiction and nonfiction, the statement that is most accurate is that nonfiction writers are more often free to move about in time and space. The correct option among all the options that are given in the question is the third option or option "c". Fiction writers do not need to be realistic.
