Answer:
Both accepted fate to be ultimate in determining one's life course
Explanation:
In the Myth of Sisyphus, Sisyphus was eternally condemned by the gods to push a rock up a hill, only to have it fall down on him again. Meursault however, is a person who is accused of murder, sent to jail for over a year, and is then executed. What both these characters have come to realize is that they are forced to live in these situations created by fate, therefore they might as well enjoy or at least get used to them.
Meursault is forced to live in a cell without any pleasures, such as his cigarettes or the love of a woman. When this happens, Meursault recalls what his mother told him.
She said that one could get used to just about anything. When Meursault realizes and understands that this is just part of his punishment, he becomes indifferent, as he always does, and accepts his situation. Though Meursault had mentally accepted his situation, his body still suffers withdraw symptoms and sexual urges. Eventually however, his body got used to it as well. He passively defies punishment by accepting his situation and enjoying himself in jail. That is when Meursault's punishment isn't a punishment anymore. When Meursault is condemned to death, he does not act surprised, although he wishes he did not have to die. After a while he accepts that too. It did not matter to him that he is going to die, since he reasoned that he would have to face the same dilemma in a few years anyway.
Answer:
according to me d is the answer not sure
The inference is that Jimmy was a criminal who returned to safecracking when he was released from prison but later changed.
<h3>How to illustrate the story?</h3>
It should be noted that the story was about a man named Jimmy who robbed a bank and was sent to prison.
He later got out and went back to steal but later changed when he met a lady and fell in love.
Learn more about inference on:
brainly.com/question/25280941
#SPJ1
Answer: the answer is “what friends are for”
Explanation:
i got it right on the quiz from iready :)
Answer:
C. Anaphora
Explanation:
An analogy is a comparison of things using figurative language/imagery. So Choice A is incorrect.
Logos is a persuasive technique. It appeals to people's <em>logic. </em>The phrase "He has" doesn't appeal to logic. So Choice B is incorrect.
Parallelism means a close connection between two things/two things that mirror each other. "He has" does not parallel anything. So Choice D is incorrect.
A Red Herring is a misleading or false statement meant to negate or confuse the audience. This doesn't make sense in terms of "He has," so Choice E is incorrect.
By process of elimination, we're left with C. Anaphora. An anaphora is the repetion of a word or phrase at the start of several sentences. This makes sense and is the most logical answer.
