Answer:
C) It makes fun of the old tales of knightly adventure.
Explanation:
A. the absence of people suggests that something is very wrong with society.
All of the options are true statements. To answer this question it is important to look at what the question is asking. The key words in the question are impact and setting. Option B talks about the setting when it describes the weeds in the pavement, but this does not really have any profound impact on the story. Option C tells us about the temperature of the setting but it doesn't have any overall impact. Option D is more about characterization than it is about setting. Option A is the only one that has an overall impact on the setting. It introduces the society as dystopian.
Loads of cars were rooted in their spots, not wanting to progress. Is that ok?
The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument. My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of our self-conception and that commitment to it requires the rejection of official dogma. But how is that admittedly dogmatic belief different from any other dogma, such as the one inferring that freedom of expression stops at the border of the flag?
The crucial distinction is that the commitment to freedom of conscience and expression states the simplest and least self-contradictory principle that seems to capture our aspirations. Any other principle is hopelessly at odds with our commitment to freedom of conscience. The controversy surrounding the flag-burning case makes the case well.
The controversy will rage precisely because burning the flag is such a powerful form of communication. Were it not, who would care? Thus were we to embrace a prohibiton on such communication, we would be saying that the 1st Amendment protects expression only when no one is offended. That would mean that this aspect of the 1st Amendment would be of virtually no consequence. It would protect a person only when no protection was needed. Thus, we do have one official dogma-each American may think and express anything he wants. The exception is expression that involves the risk of injury to others and the destruction of someone else`s property. Neither was present in this case.
Answer:
because he was one of the most important figure in the family thus greatly effecting his life after the murder
Explanation:
