Answer: the queen was trying to
persuade the troops
the start of the play, Romeo is a hopeless romantic, That is to say, He is in love with his enemy's daughter 1 day after breaking up with his first love, for example, at the start of the play when Romeo is talking with Benvolio, Romeo says: “bid a sick man in sadness make his will- a word ill urg’d to one that is so ill: in sadness, cousin, i do love a woman.” He is saying that he is in love with Rosaline but a couple days later he is in love with juliet, he say this to juliet: “My lips, two blushing pilgrims, ready stand to smooth that rough touch with a tender kiss” He confessing love for juliet even though he just broke up Rosaline, this shows me that Romeo falls for people to easily and he is hopeless romantic who doesn’t understand …show more content… When Romeo finds out about Juliet’s death, he rushes to her tomb only to find paris, kills him, finds juliet and then kills himself. For example, by the end of act 5 he says; “O my love, my wife, Death, that hath suck’d the honey honey of thy breath, Hath had no power yet upon thy beauty.” He is explaining how he loves her and she didn’t need to die. Another example is; “Here’s to my love! O true apothecary! Thy drugs are quick. Thus with a kiss i die.” He has killed himself over a girl he barely knew. This shows me that Romeo is being dramatic and foolish when he kill paris and himself. In conclusion, Romeo is a foolish young boy who overreacts when a girl he just me dies. In conclusion of this entire essay, Romeo is a victim of fate, Romeo is a rash and emotional young man. He feels deeply and acts quickly, often without thinking through his actions. His attitude towards love is over-enthusiastic. Romeo believes that love is what makes life worthwhile, which is why he is so desperate to be in love. He stays in love with Rosaline, even after she rejects him, up to the point when he falls in love with Juliet.
It is Probably the 3rd one or the second one
Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize stands in front of a room full of important government people; he wants his audience to recognize that being indifferent is not the same as being innocent – indifference, “after all, is more dangerous than anger or hatred”.
He forces the listeners to wonder which kind of people they are. To him, during the Holocaust, people fit into one of “three simple categories: the killers, the victims, and the bystanders” and he forces the bystanders to decide whether or not to stay indifferent to the actual situation. He takes the time to list various actual civil wars and humanitarian crises (line 17 of his speech) and contrast them with WWII.
He makes sure that his audience realise what is at stake “Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment” [for mankind]. He wants the audience to be really affected by what they hear – so he talks to them in their condition of human being: “Is it necessary at times to practice [indifference] simply to … enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine”. And he also talks to them as government people with their duty and the power they have over the actual conflicts. He wants them to compare themselves with their predecessors during WWII: “We believed that the leaders of the free world did not know what was going on … And now we knew, we learned, we discovered that the Pentagon knew, the State Department knew.”
Wiesel finishes his speech by expressing hope for the new millennium. We believed he addresses these final words to those who will refuse to stay indifferent. But it seems that Wiesel would count them in the minority: “Some of them -- so many of them -- could be saved.” probably refers to this minority.
Answer:
B
Explanation:
Because nobody is being called by "you" or "I"
