The reason writers should take a break between writing the first draft and the revising stage is so to have a fresh perspective on what they have written<span>. Too often after writing a first draft, writers feel a strong connection to their work and are not welcome enough to begin the critiquing process. They are still in the same mindset of what they just created and do not want to change it or cannot see it from a different perspective that may benefit the work. Thus, they should take a break and come back to it later when they are refreshed and able to critique their work in order to revise it. </span>
In this group discussion I gathered three of my friends to Discuss whether the New California Republic would win the war against the legion in Fallout: New Vegas that all are discussing about the fallout.
<h3>What is Group Discussion?</h3>
The Group Discussion or GD is a kind of dialogue that entails humans sharing thoughts or activities. People withinside the organization dialogue are linked with one primary idea. Based on that idea, everybody withinside the organization represents his/her perspective.
They despatched their high-quality guys to forestall the Rangers and 1st Recon, however the Rangers pulled them right into a entice at Boulder City and blew all of them to hell. After that the Legion's forces have been in disarray and attempted to retreat. However, our forces superior hastily and routed them.
Read more about the Group Discussion:
brainly.com/question/2290843
#SPJ1
Answer:
<em>Overcrowded and poor living conditions can contribute to the spread of airborne diseases such as tuberculosis and respiratory infections such as pneumonia. Reliance on open fires or traditional stoves can lead to deadly indoor air pollution. A lack of food, clean water and sanitation can also be fatal.</em>
Answer:
From my point of view, justice has not been served, specially if we understand that revenge is not a synonym of justice. Moreover, the ending has a bittersweet sensation because one would have expected someone to survive and find a way of restoring the order; with the death of King Claudius and Prince Hamlet, Denmark is left in a fragile situation, and we wonder: Was this Hamlet's plan? How could this be justice when there is not a complete positive outcome for Hamlet and the society?
We should consider the different events of the play, because there are several characters that are seeking revenge/justice. In the final scene, we can see that:
- Hamlet is able to kill King Claudius (and finds "justice" for his father)
- Laertes kills Hamlet (and finds "justice" for the death of his father Polonious)
- Hamlet kills Laertes (and finds "justice" for his own death)
From this point of view, it could be said that revenge is the only protagonist of this play. If any of the characters would have been able to leave their personal affairs aside, they could have thought of the consequences that could be left for the people around them. Their thirst for revenge only left them satisfied, and the rest suffered the consequences. If they would have sought justice, the outcome would have been different: order would have been re-established and Denmark wouldn't have been left on such fragile situation.
