Answer:
Because it covers so much territory, the plain gives Europe the lowest average elevation of any continent
Explanation:
The broadening of literature to address such ordinary characters and events can make it more appealing as readers can relate to the themes and stories.
<h3>Why are ordinary characters appealing?</h3>
Ancient literature focused more on extraordinary characters, such as heroes and gods or goddesses. Those characters had lives and, therefore, challenges that were very different from our own.
On the other hand, modern literature has broadened that scope of characters to include more ordinary or common ones. These characters face issues and challenges similar to ours. Their own personalities and behavior can remind us of our own.
That makes them more appealing as readers can now truly relate to their stories and the themes developed in them. For example, in "A Wagner Matinée," the young man takes his aunt to a concert, which awakens her old passion for music and makes her long for the lifestyle she gave up when she got married.
Such a theme is relatable to both men and women who have sacrificed something in their lives in order to get married, change jobs, have children, etc. Therefore, the story can be appealing to almost anyone.
Learn more about characters here:
brainly.com/question/10035604
#SPJ1
The Tiker v. Des Moines case is a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court. This decision defended the constitutional rights of public schools students. This case started when Mary Beth Tinker, John F Tinker, Hope Tinker, and Paul Tinker decided to wear a black armband to school to protest against the Vietnam War. The school officers didn’t allow that and asked the students to remove the armbands immediately, they refused and because of that, they were sent home.
The Iowa Civil Liberties Union filed a suit and then it got to the US Supreme Court it rulled a 7-2 decision.
The Majority opinion of the court was based in that the First Amendment - <em>that prevents the government from banishing religion, prohibiting the freedom of speech, of the press and other rights </em>- is applied to public schools.
The dissidents opinion based that disruptive symbolic speech was not protected by the first amendment and that:<em> “I have never believed that any person has a right to give speeches or engage in demonstrations where he pleases and when he pleases."</em> the judge said that this ruling would give an authorization for pupils and students to defy orders of school principals.
The stronger argument is the majority argument. The first amendment is clear that every single American citizen has the right to freedom of speech, also the first amendment doesn’t say which place the freedom of speech is not allowed. The students, in this case, did not hurt or say anything to anyone, they simply wanted to wear an armband that symbolized their opinion. It is not correct that schools officials that do not agree with that opinion just censor it creating new rules just because of that. The fact that the students didn’t do anything to harm any other student and didn’t affect the operation of the school was another sign of the illegality of the act of the schools principal, this is also the opinion of the court : <em>"materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." </em>
It is 7.30 o'clock. The alarm clock rings and you wake up. You get dressed, brush your teeth, have your breakfast and leave home. At 8.10 you take a bus to the work and after 45 minutes you arrive to your workplace. You clock in, smile at the reception and begin your casual day at work.