Answer:
His attitude in making all three wishes reveal that he had changed from being expectant (first wish) to being scared (second and third wish).
Explanation:
The short story "The Monkey's Paw" by W. W. Jacobs evolve around the wish-granting item of a monkey's paw that was acquired by Mr. White, the protagonist of the story. The story delves into the themes of myth, superstition, greed, and death.
After acquiring the monkey's paw from Sergeant-Major Morris, Mr. White did not really have any belief in the story of the wish-granting ability. But pressurized by his wife and son, he decided to "test" the charm and wished for <em>"two hundred pounds"</em> so that they can pay off the mortgage for the house. He was at first skeptical about the wish coming true but when he got the right amount, though, at the cost of his son's life, he began to get scared.
His second wish was to bring his son back, again after being pressurized by his wife. To him, the first wish was <em>"A c-c-coincidence"</em> and even stated <em>"It is foolish and wicked"</em> to wish for another thing, that too, for his son to be brought back alive after the gruesome way he died. And when the knocking started, he was petrified for what was to be at the door. The line <em>'"A rat,” said the old man shakily – "a rat. It passed me on the stairs."' </em>reveals the real nature of the old man when he hears the knocking at the door.
And then, after realizing that it was probably their dead son coming alive again, Mr. White<em> "was on his hands and knees feeling around wildly on the floor in search of the paw"</em> so that he can make his third wish and make <em>"the thing"</em> at the door go away. The very nature of addressing whoever/ whatever was at the door as<em> "the thing"</em> suggests that whatever was there is something that isn't natural. Mr. White's frantic reaction and wish to make the knocking stop shows his scared reaction to the wishes he had made.
Short answer: You are answering why?
Why doesn't she want to go out? She doesn't want to go out because she's in a very bad mood. She knows that she won't be good company.
Remark
The sentence after the ; (semicolon) does not begin with any kind of connective word. If you put a noun in place of she, you would see that the last part after the semicolon is a complete sentence.
Answer:
A people who are interested in the causes and cures of diseases
Explanation:
The correct answer is letter D, autobiography. If you cut the word into two, you will have auto and biography. Auto obviously means author. So, autobiography means the author's biography. An autobiography is an account of a person't life written by that same person as well. With is being a non-fiction, it is a true to life story which means that no character is fake and every story he/she tells really happened to his/her life. Also, the characters, setting and events of his/her life in the autobiography is real.
It seems that the BJP government’s decision to illegalise the sale of cattle for slaughter at animal markets has its roots in a PIL that quotes the five-yearly Gadhimai festival in Nepal, where thousands of buffaloes are taken from India to be sacrificed to ‘appease’ Gadhimai, the goddess of power.
The contradictions that emerge from cattle – here encompassing all bovines – slaughter rules in Nepal perplex many: despite being predominantly Hindu, animal sacrifice continues to be practised. Cow slaughter is explicitly prohibited even in Nepal’s new constitution since it is the national animal, yet the ritual sacrifice of buffaloes and the consumption of their meat is not frowned upon. There is also, in marked contrast to the Indian government’s blanket approach to cattle terminology, a lucid distinction between cows (both the male and female) and other ‘cattle’ species (such as buffaloes and yaks).
The emergence of this contradictory, often paradoxical, approach to cattle slaughter in Nepal is the result of a careful balancing act by the rulers of modern Nepal. The Shah dynasty and the Rana prime ministers often found themselves at a crossroads to explicitly define the rules of cattle slaughter. As rulers of a perceived ‘asal Hindu-sthan’, their dharma bound them to protect the cow – the House of Gorkha borrows its name from the Sanskrit ‘gou-raksha’ – but as they expanded into an empire, their stringent Brahminic rules came into conflict with des-dharma, or existing local customs, where cattle-killing was a norm. What followed was an intentionally ambiguous approach to cattle slaughter, an exercise in social realpolitik.
