The correct answer to this open question is the following.
The opinion that the author expresses about a poor “countryman’s” place in Europe versus his place in America is that in Europe, the government and society do no take into consideration the poor people. The result of this attitude is that poor European people find it hard to call these countries their own, because of that indifference. In comparison, the author says that in the American colonies they have proper legislation and social systems that allow the creation of jobs for all Americans, so citizens feel protected and cherished by the government.
We are talking about the fictional publication called "Letters from an American Farmer," written by J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur.
1. After Brian pulled out the porcupine quills, he started to cry.
2. His most important rule is that feeling sorry for yourself didn't work as it can't make fire or pull out the porcupine quills.
3. Fire needs oxygen to live.
4. "The main character in Hatchet, Brian Robeson, is a thirteen-year-old boy from New York City. This novel primarily deals with themes of man and nature as well as of self-awareness and self-actualization, mainly through Brian's experiences living alone in the wilderness. Therefore, he is essentially the only principal character. Brian's parents have just recently divorced, and this conflict between them has deeply affected Brian and his sense of stability. His sense of self has been disrupted by his parents' split, and he bears the burden of "The Secret," that is, the knowledge that his mother is having an affair with another man." According to Spark Notes. I haven't read Hatchet in years lol
5. Food (like the berries), the lake (for water), fire (warmth)
6. The 20 dollar bill was useless to get him out of the wilderness.
Answer:
The answer is D obviously
Answer is this
D-the author is speculating but not proving concrete evidence
McCarthyism is nothing more than a witch hunt. A lot of finger pointing and not a lot of proof. Both parties (Democrat & Republican) in the United States use this in todays world. Ill give examples of both and follow up with how it can be beneficial to each party.
Democrats: Accuse other politicians of being "racist" or "bigoted" just from political ideas and from certain members of the base. While it is not fact or true that Republicans are by policy racist, it is a word that is hated by people and has a negative connotation to it, forcing some to keep distance from said person
Republicans: Accuse other politicians of being "muslin lovers" or "muslins" themselves. We saw this for the entire Obama presidency. Congress and some Republican supporters would use the word "muslin" to describe the president in order to give a negative connotation towards Obama. This has some strong effectiveness due to the recent events (September 11th, 2001).
Both parties are trying to stick a negative idea/precedent/description about the opposition in order to sway votes. This tactic is very effective because not only will you sway votes, theres little repercussion in doing so because the people who disagree with you are not going to be swayed, but that voter in the middle who cares about one issue over the other (in this case racism over fear of muslims or vice versa fear of muslims over racism).
Either someone is intelligent enough to know the rhetoric between the two parties and votes by policy (unaffected / no positive or negative response), they don't care about either issue (unaffected / no positive or negative response), or someone is strongly in favor of one or the other (strong positive or negative response).
While there are some attempts that have been made and can be made that would be so egregious that most people have a negative response, but that rarely happens and would be deemed political suicide.
Hope this helps.
