Answer:
the first one means i think lets eat and the calling grandma
Explanation:
Hi there!
The statement that best describes the satire in the excerpt from The Canterbury Tales is that Chaucer criticizes the idea that forgiveness is available for purchase.
In pieces of literature, performing arts or dances, satire is a genre that is used to ridicule or shame someone through wittiness and in form of humour. Satire is usually meant to be humorous.
This can be seen in the excerpt with: “All for a penny! Out now with your purse!” <em>Chaucer expresses humorously what he thinks about churches. </em>
Hope this helps!
The correct answer is: It helps the reader understand how precious friends and family are to slaves.
Indeed, slavery was a complex issue and several situations were possible for slaves. They would prefer not to escape and abandon dear friends and family. They would escape in order to later come and help friends and family escape. They would not have any friends or family but were too afraid to attempt escape. They would have no friends and family and thus would attempt escape.
The only constant value within these options is that they would always value friends and family if they had them.
I'll just post the text where the statement "note an irony in my argument" is found.
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:
Although the narrator does not explicitly state that Patrick has announced that he is leaving Mary, his pregnant wife, the words "of course, I'll give you money and see that you're taken care of" make clear his intention. He comments that it would make trouble for him in his job as a policeman if he abandons her.
Explanation:
pls Mark me as brainiest
