Answer:
It turns out that the Mexican delicacy, known as huitlacoche, is much to my surprise a fungus that infects corn.
Answer:
rudhi gghjhgx hhiddcb ghigxxx ggffghhss
Answer:
All answers
Explanation:
For this assignment, you will write an evaluation of either of two historic passages. 1) Patrick Henry’s ” Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!”speech ( 1775) 2) Fredrick Douglass’s address, ” What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” ( 1852) . ( Question 1) What is the speaker’s viewpoint? What is his clam?, Question 2) What reasons does the speaker provide to his viewpoint or claim? , ) How valid are the speaker’s reasons for his claim? Use evidence from the text to support your answer. Question 4) What evidence does the speaker provide to support his reasons? ) Is the speaker’s evidence relevant and sufficient? Use evidence from the text to support your answer. Question 6) Does the speaker use fallacious reasoning or logical fallacies? Use evidence from the text to support your answers. Question 7) What counterclaims or alternate claims does the speaker address, or and how does he respond to them? Question 8) How effective is the speaker’s response to counterclaims or alternate? Use evidence from the text to support your answer. Question 9) Write a one – paragraph evaluation of the speaker’s argument. ( Will Mark ) Only Answer If You Know Actually What To Do For This Assignment).
Answer:
Killing should never really be considered to be justified whether in a work of fiction or not; however, Rainsford was in a position of kill or be killed. The whole thing is a case of kill or be killed, essentially self defense. I guess it depends on how you view that type of thing, but in my opinion, if Rainsford had not killed Zaroff, then he would have undoubtedly died. Therefore, yes I believe he was justified in his decision.
As with all interpretive questions, your answer is based upon your own reading of the story and how you analyze the plot and characters. Rainsford had escaped Zaroff, and won the game. There was no reason to return to the masion and kill Zaroff except to exact revenge. Consider that Rainsford himself is a hunter, used to being in power. Although he had never considered doing something as inhumane as Zaroff in hunting humans, his choice to kill Zaroff reveals his need to be in control. In this case, his killing of Zaroff isn't about justice, but about revenge.
On the other hand, there is nothing to suggest Zaroff would have quit hunting humans. He was a static character, who didn't change even when he "lost" the hunt of Rainsford. In this reading, the audience can interpret that Rainsford is doing his part for mankind by eliminating the threat of the murderer Zaroff. After all, on this island, there is no justice system by which to prosecute him.
You will need to choose the answer that best supports your understanding of the characters.
Answer:
make everyone chutia in the whole world
