The sentences have been correctly matched to their literary devices below:
- Homophone: She mixed the flour, while sniffing the flower.
- Pun: A horse is a very stable animal.
- Homonym: Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
Homophones are two words that have the same pronunciations but different meanings. Flour and flower are homophones.
Pun is a literary device that plays with words. Stable is the pun in the sentence. It is played with a stable- the place where horses are kept.
Homonyms are words that have same spellings and pronunciations but different meanings. Flies are the homonyms in the third sentence.
Learn more about literary devices here:
brainly.com/question/2183813
Answer:
The speaker seeks the moments of happiness in the poem From Blossoms.
Explanation:
From Blossoms is a poem written by Li-Young Lee. The poem talks about finding happiness in small moments and capturing them in your memory. He shares his experience of eating peaches in the poem.
After reading the poem, I opine that the speaker is seeking moments of happiness. By saying <em>"There are days we live/ as if death were nowhere",</em> the speaker is asserting that he choose to live in happiness as if death is nowhere. This means that the speaker is not thinking much about the future but living the present moments of happiness and capturing them in his memories.
Answer:
(Name) Here,
Schools have long banned corporal punishment. But now there is a debate about whether the decision to ban corporal punishment in schools was the right one and whether it should be reinstated.
1. It is wrong and inappropriate.
No, because
- Using physical force to discipline or punish a child clearly violates basic human rights. A child's right to safety is stated in Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. To protect children, all services should ensure that definitions of abuse do not condone any form of sexual activity. Corporal punishment is both legally and morally wrong. There are plenty of alternatives to beating a child! For example, a parent can deny children privileges, restrict their hobbies, or even force them to work to make amends for bad behavior. behavior. However, physically harming a child is completely unnecessary. What would it be like if the conductor was beaten instead of the other way around? No way.
Yes, because...
- So, by having this article, you are saying that parents or teachers cannot punish their children. misbehaving in school and at home? If we all follow this article and do not punish our children, how are we supposed to "strike the fear of God into them"? How do we punish children? Already have kids It will become a "living hell" if this continues and corporal punishment is used. Because I used to be a kid, I know that slapping a kid's hand or grounding them does nothing but make them more defiant towards rules. How are we preparing them for the real world? You blew it. The cops won't smack your hand and corner you. But the ramifications will be huge. So, do you want a disciplined or a lawless generation? You say...
2. Discriminates against children with disabilities.
No, because
- Because of panic attacks, repeated bullying, or lack of self-control, I did many bad things as a child with Asperger's. In my desperation to remove something from the classroom that I disliked. No way physical I would not have given in to punishment. I would have been seriously injured if I had been left alone to work in a room. This would be fine if teachers could tell the difference between troubled children and those who can be helped, but they can't and don't often. Anyway, I sympathize.
Yes Because...
- I believe it is obvious that a child would not be admitted to school if his or her parents were unaware of any behavioral issues. Keeping in mind that most cases are publicity stunts, we are to blame. Isolate. Of course, this is still used today, but it seems to fail with anger. People think it's cool to break the rules to impress friends or family. admirers. Embarrassment is my preferred method of deterring bad behavior.
3. It raises crime and violence.
No, because
- Corporal punishment has been linked to increased aggression, substance abuse, and criminality. Because they don't know any better, many victims of corporal punishment lash out and repeat the abuse. In other words, it teaches kids to be violent. Violence and crime are increased by corporal punishment. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) agrees, stating that "the more children are spanked, the more adult anger they report, the more likely they are to spank their own children and approve of child abuse. In adulthood, the more married they are, the more marital conflict they have. Thus, corporal punishment not only starts violence does not only affects children's lives as adults. The government should work to reduce violence, not increase it by reintroducing one of its founders.
Yes because...
- This claim is unsupported by data. There's a reason. Because statistics show that after corporal punishment was made illegal, crime increased by 67%. The data strongly support reintroducing corporal punishment.
Finally, I oppose corporal punishment. That's because if someone has punched someone or done anything violent to someone, you're basically hitting them and telling them that violence isn't the answer. Also, if you do this to them, you are teaching them that violence is acceptable and they may do it to you later. Because you taught them it was okay. Also, they may commit crimes because of you. 70% of these kids are known to have a troubled future due to past corporal punishment. A lot of today's kids have a bad attitude, so the cane or any other corporal Some teachers have favorites who are not punished if they do wrong, and non-favorites who are disliked. People who did nothing wrong got the cane or any other corporal punishment. This would be unfair and considered favoritism.
Thanks for listening,
Answer:
The author's main argument in his essay was to tell how to develop scientific claims reaching to it's final conclusion rather than fascinating claims.
Explanation:
'Sex, Drugs, Disasters, and the Extinction of Dinosaurs' is an essay written by Stephen Jay Gould, a Professor of Geology at Harvard University.
In his essay he explains how dinosaurs extinction took place by elaborating the three elements– sex, drugs, and disaster. By detailing each and every aspects, Gould presents how a good scientific proposal is elaborated. He starts his essay by defining science and how conclusions are reached through series of consequences and not by fascination. Then he goes on the explain his points and reaching the conclusion of his thesis.
Therefore, the main argument by Gould in this essay was to educate his readers how to develop scientific claims reaching to it's final conclusion rather than fascinating claims.
