The negative trait of Armida that irritated her friend was possessiveness, as shown in option B in the first question. The lesson Armida learned from the chicks was that if a chick is held too tightly, he will fight, as shown in option D.
<h3>What happened to Armida?</h3>
- She took friendship very seriously.
- She was possessive of her friend.
- She didn't allow her friend to have other interests.
Armida proved to be a very suffocating friend. She was possessive of her friend and wanted that friend to always live up to what she wanted. This caused her friend to move away, which made her very sad.
When playing with chicks, she understood that if she holds a chick too tightly, the chick will pull away from her, just as she did with her friend.
More information about friendships at the link:
brainly.com/question/26627248
Dude all the question is asking you is too choose 5 activity that you would plan on doing in the future.
This question asks for an essay, which is a personal task that only you can complete. However, we are still able to provide some guidance that can help you complete your work.
In her "Letter to Napoleon III," Elizabeth Barrett Browning employs several rhetorical strategies to urge Napoleon III to forgive the author Victor Hugo and free him from his imprisonment.
Browning uses ethos when she presents herself as a fair person. Ethos refers to an appeal to credibility, and Browning employs it when she agrees with Napoleon about the wrong nature of Victor Hugo's actions. She also employs a paradox to force Napoleon to pay close attention to her argument. The paradox is that, even though Victor Hugo acted against the emperor, he deserves to be free. Browning employs anaphora when she repeats the phrase "what touches you" in order to convince Napoleon of the importance of his reputation. Finally, she uses pathos (an appeal to emotion) when she highlights how grateful and admiring Napoleon's subjects will be if he pardons Victor Hugo.
