work cited page involves books, papers, websites etc
hope it's correct
thanks
In the story of “Shooting an Elephant”, when the narrator views the body of the Burmese man who had been creased to death in a crucifix-styled posture, he has an overwhelming attack of conscience. The narrator realizes that just like the Burmese man, the elephant had been crucified, as well, and it does not appease the narrator that his killing the elephant was within legal parameters.The narrator apprehends that the law and conscience are often not well-matched. He is there in an official capability and is hated for it by the Burmese. He equally has hated them for their anger. Yet, when he allows his morality to surface, he understands that he is part of the structure that is there to tyrannize the Burmese. The fact that he holds a position of authority does not essentially make it a moral duty. This is true of his killing the elephant. He did not want to lose face in front of the Burmese, and he was legally justified in killing it, but morally he knows that it was actually morally wrong.
I believe the answer would be “all of these”
