A woman has to constantly keep her wardrobe updated with the latest couture in trend, and in society where the self worth of a person is judged by the labels and brands she has. If she wears rubber boots they make fun of her and call her "bride of Frankenstein" so he got some hand me down dresses from her cousins who is 3 years older but the dress are outdated. Later on she lives in the west and learns that she shouldn't try to flaw and she should just be herself and what's in the inside is what counts and not the outside.
Answer:
2 she assumes a cause and effect relationship based on irrelevant information
Explanation:
Whatever we make of the substance of Judge Andrew Rutherford's ruling in the Cornish private hotel case, his citation of a striking and controversial opinion by Lord Justice Laws – delivered in another religious freedom case in 2010 – is worth pausing over. The owners of the Chymorvah hotel were found to have discriminated against a gay couple by refusing them a double-bedded room. They had appealed to their right to manifest their religious belief by running their hotel according to Christian moral standards. Given the drift of recent legal judgments in cases where equality rights are thought to clash with religious freedom rights, it is no surprise that the gay couple won their case.
But quite apart from the merits of the case, judges should be warned off any future reliance on the ill-considered opinions about law and religion ventured last year by Lord Justice Laws. Laws rightly asserted that no law can justify itself purely on the basis of the authority of any religion or belief system: "The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other."
A sound basis for this view is Locke's terse principle, in his Letter on Toleration, that "neither the right nor the art of ruling does necessarily carry with it the certain knowledge of other things; and least of all the true religion".
But Laws seemed to ground the principle instead on two problematic and potentially discriminatory claims. One is that the state can only justify a law on the grounds that it can be seen rationally and objectively to advance the general good (I paraphrase). The question is, seen by whom? What counts as rational, objective and publicly beneficial is not at all self-evident but deeply contested, determined in the cut and thrust of democratic debate and certainly not by the subjective views of individual judges. Religiously inspired political views – such as those driving the US civil rights movement of the 1960s or the Burmese Buddhists today – have as much right to enter that contest as any others. In this sense law can quite legitimately be influenced by religion.
Laws' other claim is that religious belief is, for all except the holder, "incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence", and that the truth of it "lies only in the heart of the believer". But many non-Christians, for example, recognise that at least some of the claims of Christianity – historical ones, no doubt, or claims about universal moral values – are capable of successful communication to and critical assessment by others. Laws' assertion is also inconsistent with his own Anglican tradition, in which authority has never been seen as based on the subjective opinions of the individual but rather on the claims of "scripture, tradition and reason" acting in concert.
Answer:
Parts of the passage that shows that Nate and his family played a role in the American independence are highlighted below
(1) "Somewhere beyond these stingy New Hampshire fields, his brother Eben was marching gloriously with his regiment, defending the colonies against the British", This part shows that Nate's brother is part of the military
(2) Nate's father also mentioned that “Your cousin Abe has joined the militia—guess they fnally thought he was old enough
to be of use" which shows also that Nate's family plays a role in the war.
(3) Also Nate family also helped to feed a troop with potato, water and also provided them with shelter for the night according to the passage.
Explanation:
please brainless
