Answer:
I would take my chances that way if I had to fight for love, freedom or security.
Explanation:
From the context of your question, we can assume that you are referring to the play "Romeo and Juliet" where Juliet takes her place in the family by marrying in secret to Romeo, who belonged to an enemy family of hers.
As stated in the question, Juliet lived in a society where she was completely dependent on her parents and had neither permission nor authority to make any decisions about her life. However, she faced it out of love. I believe that, in my case, I would take the same risk as she if I knew true love, as she did. Also, I would take a risk that way, to protect someone in the family, or to get rid of a very negative situation. Those would be the only ways I would break the authority of my family that I was dependent on.
Answer:
D
Explanation:
D because the basic run down of systematic oppression is when the laws that are placed create unequal treatment of a specific social identity group or group.
Referring to an excerpt from “I Explain a Few Things” by Pablo Neruda the correct choice is: By addressing the reader directly and asking the reader to see what is happening in Spain, the speaker reinforces his view that poetry could and should be used to inspire action—not just to describe beautiful things.
Add you on what? ughhodjdifnf
Answer:
We have always had stories. They were first told orally as fairy tales, folklore, and epic poems, and were eventually written down. And for as long as we have had stories, we’ve had literature. Stories are usually considered literature when they have long-lasting artistic or social value. Epic poems like The Odyssey or novels like To Kill a Mockingbird are considered literature because they have deeper meanings that go beyond the story. Both stories are meant to do more than just amuse the reader. A pop novel, like a James Patterson book you can buy at the airport, would not traditionally be considered literature because it is not meant to do much more than entertain the reader.
As we’ve transitioned from hearing stories to reading them, our ideas have changed about what kinds of stories have merit. We have always made a point to pass on the stories we value to next generation, regardless of their form. Therefore, it should not be so outrageous to declare that a new form of literature has been forged and needs to be passed on: television shows.
Television shows can be as complex as novels and can provide students with opportunities to learn that novels do not. Yet, there are legitimate concerns about using classroom time to dissect1 television. One issue is that complex television shows tend to have adult or graphic themes not suitable for the classroom. Another concern involves how much time students spend on television. Plenty of students already watch and discuss television in their own time, so is television needed in the classroom, too? Finally, the written word teaches cognitive2 skills that television cannot.
