Third-person omniscient narrators are likely to be reliable because _____.

2 answers:

5 0

Third-person omniscient narrators are likely to be reliable because they're impersonal and know everything about the story. In this type of point of view, the narrator can narrate the events from one character to another with all the needed information without causing confusion as to their interrelationship.

Sauron [17]4 years ago

5 0

they're impersonal and know everything about the story

You might be interested in

Use details from the text to determine if the author's viewpoint about the underlined topic is favorable, unfavorable,

snow_lady [41]

Answer:

Positive or Favorable: When Luke first got his balanced brand

Negative or unfavorable: Landfills are over flowing with garbage, The penny has out stayed it's welcome, Just because a few famous people, Competitive eating is not a sport

Neutral or Objective: Single-use bottled water is commonly, A professional Manicure, The approximate life span of a penny, Speed eating also known as competitive eating

Explanation: Just finished the USATESTPREP for this and i got the answers

Plz give me 5 stars

8 0

3 years ago

Part b what effect does that narrative structure have on the passage?

Lynna [10]

Answer:

C. It increases the reader's interest and insight into a character.

Explanation:

I hope this helps. =D =^0o0^=

8 0

2 years ago

A) You can turn off the radio. I ..(not/listen) to it. (Use correct tense of the verb given in the brackets)

siniylev [52]

oaaaaaabbnaksbssnnkawndnd

7 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Compare Zaroff’s and Rainsford’s point of view on the hunt. How does this tension contribute to the moral stakes of the story?

stiks02 [169]

Answer and Explanation:

Zaroff and Rainsford are characters in Richard Connell's short story "The Most Dangerous Game". The whole story revolves around what is moral and what is not, as well as the characters' ability to empathize with others.

It is interesting to notice that Rainsford and Zaroff are more similar than they are different. They are both skilled hunters who also happen to be quite arrogant about their profession. Both fail to empathize with their prey. However, this is where the difference begins and ends. Rainsford hunts wild animals. He does not think of a jaguar's feelings when he fires his gun to kill it.

Zaroff, on the other hand, hunts men. He knows very well he is hunting rational beings like himself. But he does not care. He sees the men he hunts as inferior to him, just like Rainsford sees the animals as mere huntees. Yet, Rainsford is incapable of condoning with Zaroff's behavior and perception. To Rainsford, what Zaroff does is pure muder.

This tension and the conflict this difference generates are what advances the plot. Both hunters have similar views, only one of them has taken it to the next level. Is only Zaroff wrong? Are both of them murderers? Is Rainsford a better men simply because he has a different sense of moral when it comes to other human beings, but no moral when it comes to animals? Thus, the moral stakes of the story make us wonder and question the characters.

6 0

4 years ago

Help me get the answer

riadik2000 [5.3K]

Answer:

Explanation:

Other subjects, not just one.

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers