Answer:
Essential Question/Assumption: “What is taught is what is learned.”
I disagree with this assumption.
Students are taught language in class for them to learn based on the curriculum that needed to be completed by the students and the teachers. They are given those important language modules with contents and lessons like grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, etc. Indeed, they are taught with information but it doesn’t mean they acquire them. It all boils down if the taught language is acquired or just another information delivered but passively learned.
Basically, what is taught in class is controlled and normally followed a rote learning process aiming to get good scores in exams. This kind of learning is very objective and information learned is forgotten day by day when the information learned is not relevant to daily conversations.
We can see that students who passively learned English through movie watching, constant reading can learn more quickly than those students diligently study words and verbs which are taught in class.
You would be surprised when a teacher asks a student a particular idea taught in class. However, student can answer more sensible information aside from what is taught, since answers are based on student understanding, which is not directly taught by the teacher. The student comes up with answers based on her/his research, previous readings, instructions from home or peers. So learning is not limited to what is taught but it’s more of synthesizing everything. The fact about what is taught in class is just bridging the information students have learned previously.
Somehow what is taught is just an additional information that can help students improve their language learning. Aside from what they have learned in class, they also have their extra reading and information that can help them improve in learning a language.
Answer:
Hysteria is a term used to describe emotional excess, but it was also once a common medical diagnosis. In layman's terms, hysteria is often used to describe emotionally charged behavior that seems excessive and out of control.
Explanation:
When someone responds in a way that seems disproportionately emotional for the situation, they are often described as hysterical. During the Victorian era, the term was often used to refer to a host of symptoms that were generally observed only in women.
The essential appositive in the sentence "astronomer maia mitchell discovered a comet in 1847 and went on to become the first professional female astronomer in the united states," is Maia Mitchel. The last option is correct.
An appositive consists on a noun or noun phrase that renames another noun right beside it. The appositive can be a short or long combination of words.
In this particular case, the words Maia Mitchell which is a proper noun is renaming the noun astronomer, which is right before it and constitutes the subject of the sentence.
For the first one, I would start by mentioning the characters crime, add something about how it was inexcusable, then incorporate a condensed precis on the characters situation (leaving out any bits that could embody the characters freedom). And end with a statement that discloses that your appeal is unarguable because (enter main argument here) and that is why so and so should be imprisoned.
<span>For the second question, I would personally choose the feminist because it would in theory be easier to explain their basic philosophy and how it is affecting the plot. Because I don't know who the character is, I can't really elaborate further. But please contact me if you need any more help, I'll do what I can. </span>
