Answer:
-so they can learn personally
-so they have a good relationship with there teacher
-so they know that they are doing good
Explanation:
Answer:
Out of anger at the end of the story, she reminds her husband the he was the one who invited to stranger into their home. Arguably he was the one who forced both of them to finally acknowledge what truly did happen when they were all still alive in that house years ago, all of the anger, all of the abuse, and perhaps even death. And now because of the stranger’s visit, they are reminded of this hellish limbo they must endure for an eternity. Joyce Carol Oates certainly seems to offer enough evidence in this Gothic tale for the reader to arrive at this conclusion. She skillfully creates a bleak setting including actual and implied violent incidents and characters in psychological torment, not only the supernatural ghostly visitor but also the couple who are reminded of who they truly were and what they are now. Oates says that “Horror is a fact of life” only one of many facets of life. With horror, Oates seems to be addressing a larger social issue in this story, which can serve as an indictment of violent relationships and having to live with the consequences of your actions, just as these people have been relegated to their own hell for an eternity to reflect on their actions.
Hope this helps you. Do mark me as brainliest.
The hypothesis can be made based on the details Lehner gives in paragraph 2 is: "Prescribed burns will restore more nutrients to the soil than natural fires." (Option D)
<h3>What is a Hypothesis?</h3>
A hypothesis is a theoretical explanation made on the basis of evidence that is insufficient.
In this scenario, the hypothesis can be made based on the details Lehner gives in paragraph 2 is: "Prescribed burns will restore more nutrients to the
soil than natural fires."
Learn more about the Hypothesis at:
brainly.com/question/13504301
#SPJ1
Prior Claim:
Personally assimilation isn't by any means an a necessity. The concept of assimilationism comes from a racist time where the need for assimilation was driven by the society. Society in early America was an inheretly racist time as it was the time of the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. This, in part was the reason assimilationism became such a large part of Americana. I think as a whole assimilationism is a racist societal problem, as Assimilation contributes to the melting pot ideals set in Modern America. Melting Pot of ideals as a whole benefits a society by having different view points, it allows for a more beautiful democracy.
Counter Claim:
Assimilation isn't a racist system, more or less it's system that allows for other groups, apart from America, to feel more like an Americans. Integration of another ideal system is a great thing, but more or less making it Americanized contributes a sort of Foriegn American Patriotism. That allowing a group to integrate their belief system is better for America as it shows that we are a melting pot. Full assimilation isn't what I'm asking for, but rather an integration of the best parts of another society but leave out the parts not inheretly American.
