Answer:
I was waiting for you, but you did not come.
It was already late, so she went back home.
Explanation:
When two or more phrases are combined together to form one complete sentence, it can be termed as compound phrases. Compound phrases are combined using words like and, for, so, but, yet, etc.
A compound sentence containing a nominative case pronoun can be "I was waiting for you, but you did not come".
A compound sentence containing an objective case pronoun can be "It was already late, so she went back home".
What I personally think: 1. Ugly 2. Erica ran at the gym and John is tall 3. Taking notes and finding the main idea 4. M<span>any words have certain images or associations for most listeners and might affect what they think of the speech 5. Satire 6. Ask questions, Listen attentively, and take notes 7. Exaggeration 8. Worn-out
I hope this helped! :-)</span>
Answer:
Role.
Explanation:
'Role' is demonstrated as the set of responsibilities that is necessary to accomplish a 'job'. In corporate terminology, it is demonstrated as a 'designation that denotes an affiliated set of skills, education, knowledge, or attitude' that an individual requires to possess to fit in that role.
In the given example, the act or skills displayed by the two men who have applied for a job exemplifies the concept of 'role'. It implies that they attempt to fit in the 'role'(job) by displaying the necessary skills to acquire that position. They display the 'level of authority' along with the skills that are necessary to perform the specific task and function in that 'role'.
It has been frequently and rightly remarked that the Crito is unique among
Plato’s dialogues insofar as its primary concern is what Socrates ought to do.
2
Most interpreters assume that Socrates ought to do what seems best to his reason (Cr 46b3-6); thus, most interpretations defend the rationality of obedience
or disobedience. On my account, it is not at all obvious that Socrates ought to
do what seems best to his reason. On my account, Socrates does not do what
seems best to his reason because he does not reason about whether he should
obey the laws; he simply obeys the laws. Doubtless, this claim seems counterintuitive to many; after all, does not Socrates articulate and defend his reasons
for remaining in prison from 49c to 54c? Is it not the cogency of Socrates’ reasons
for remaining in prison that have been so thoroughly debated in the scholarship summarized below? My answer to both of these questions is ‘no.’ Perhaps
counter-intuitively I claim that the reasons for remaining in prison, from Crito
49c to54c, are not Socrates’ reasons; they are the arguments of the speaking laws
of Athens
