<em>Modernity has changed the role of the child in the family structure.</em>
In earlier days, a child was an investment for the family. Children were there to take care of their parents in their old age. Boys were supposed to fight and bring money home, girls were expected to help in the household and to marry well later in life. The family structure depended on them for survival and that's why families used to have many children, There was also a strong sense of honoring and obedience towards one's parents. They were seen an the absolute authority and disobedience was frown upon and even punished.
Nowadays, our culture has removed the most functional demands kids have to the family. The children are still seen as an investment but in a way that elevates the parents' prestige and not in the materialistic sense. Parents provide education for their kids so that the kids can get a good job, take care of themselves and live independently as adults. In many families, parents do not expect their children to look after them in old age. Children today have far more rights and fewer obligations as before, as their upbringing is centered on providing for their needs first. Therefore, many children today feel entitled to play a leading role in the family, demanding full attention of their parents. Disobedience is often not punished and misbehavior tolerated.
In looking at the answer choices, a few can be dismissed immediately. From the passage it doesn't seem that the dismissal of the narrator's questions affects her too much. Therefore we can eliminate answers that show a drastic change in the narrator's emotions (the narrator feeling inadequate, lacking control, and fearing she may be doomed). The only answer left is that the narrator is dismissed. In gothic literature women are often seen as helpless, innocent victims.
Answer:
The speaker can connect with the audience on a personal level.
Explanation:
The difference between a speech and an essay is in the way it is presented. A confident person can interact and convince the crowd in ways words on a paper could never do.
The poet described about the kill of the Element is given below.
Explanation:
In the 1920s a young would-be poet, an ex-Etonian named Eric Blair, arrived as a Burma Police recruit and was posted to several places, culminating in Moulmein. Here he was accused of killing a timber company elephant, the chief of police saying he was a disgrace to Eton. Blair resigned while back in England on leave, and published several books under his assumed name, George Orwell.
In 1936 these were followed by what he called a “sketch” describing how, and more importantly why, he had killed a runaway elephant during his time in Moulmein, today known as Mawlamyine. By this time Orwell was highly regarded, and many were reluctant to accept that he had indeed killed an elephant. Six years later, however, a cashiered Burma Police captain named Herbert Robinson published a memoir in which he reported young Eric Blair (whom he called “the poet”) as saying back in the 1920s that he wanted to kill an elephant.
All the same, doubt has persisted among Orwell’s biographers. Neither Bernard Crick nor DJ Taylor believe he killed an elephant, Crick suggesting that he was merely influenced by a fashionable genre that blurred the line between fiction and autobiography.
To me, Orwell’s description of the great creature’s heartbreakingly slow death suggests an acute awareness of wrongdoing, as do his repeated protests: “I had no intention of shooting the elephant… I did not in the least want to shoot him … I did not want to shoot the elephant.” Though Orwell shifts the blame on to the imperialist system, I think the poet did shoot the elephant. But read the sketch and decide for yourself.
