Answer:
Explanation:
War is completely different to that of Zaroff’s game The reason being is that there are rules to war. Zaroff’s game is mostly completely ruthless in which he does not care about the well being of the others he is hunting. While in war they are trying to not cause as much pain as possible. War is not like hunting, war is an armed conflict between two or more countries or even states in its own country. Zaroff’s hunting does have conflict but both sides do not have “arms” meaning that the men that Zaroff is hunting do not have guns or means to protect themselves. Another way war is completely different is that by hunting you are killing animals for sport and or food Zaroff sees the men he hunts as animals, but in war they kill the other men by either means to protect one’s self or to gain a tactical advantage over one another. War does change people, many people have to detach oneself from their experiences just to move on to live a normal life. But in war many times people go into deep depression mostly because of the fact that people die in war, those people could’ve been family, friends, even acquaintances but the fact that they are now dead and is bone chilling to the person and to the others that they have been known to.
Answer:
Social vehicle
successful
percentage
Explanation:
yan lang kaya ko eh sorry
Answer:
Mothers always blame themselves for the bad behavior of their children.
The boy was angry with himself.
Charles did all the work himself.
The gods have themselves to blame if anything goes wrong
Explanation:
A reflexive pronoun is a type of pronoun that ends with the suffix "-self" or "-selves" and is used when the object and subject of the sentence are co-referential.
<span>If the conflict is solely internal, then the correct answer is that the protagonist and antagonist are the same. An antagonist is a character that opposes the protagonist, but here the opposition to the protagonist comes from the protagonist themselves.</span>
I was convicted of a crime and I was taken into a trial with a judge, jury and I was trying to justify the actions I partook in. I claimed that two witnesses at the event had committed perjury and I proposed a fair alibi. My road to justice had been blocked by the judicial decision to mark me as guilty. Their jurisdiction offended me, as they clearly had some racial bias that I was a victim to, I strongly believe that my trial was not just.
