1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Firlakuza [10]
3 years ago
9

What is emerson's purpose in shifting among pronouns I, we, and you?

English
1 answer:
Rom4ik [11]3 years ago
8 0
The correct answer to this question is that Emerson believes that a sentence can be grammatical in context but ungrammatical in isolation. Thank you for posting your question. I hope this answer helped you. Let me know if you need more help.   
You might be interested in
In the essay, Alvarez notes that her mother thought that the pronunciation of her name didn't
Crazy boy [7]

Answer:

I agree you don't have to pronounce your name right as long as any rose by any other name smells as sweet.

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
Read the excerpt from The Dark Game.
Ilia_Sergeevich [38]
The answer is b. it can help the british.
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What role should the government and the American people play in preserving the various forms of life on earth?
Alekssandra [29.7K]

Answer:

There is an ongoing debate about the appropriate role of government for solving environmental problems, with many environmentalists calling for increased government intervention and many people more predisposed to individual responsibility calling for less.

Without getting into a long discussion on political and economic philosophy (for now), here are a few observations on this important topic:

Proponents of classic liberalism — property rights, free markets, the rule of law, individual freedom — assume that as information improves, private markets will lead to the increased preservation of environmental resources, and that externalities (e.g., pollution) will be internalized (e.g., taken into account by private actors) given a system of strong property rights. While much improvement in the environmental arena has occurred for this very reason, and much of this is due to property rights and better scientific knowledge, many famous economists vastly under-estimated the level of coordination required to tackle some of the world’s most serious environmental problems. Issues such as global warming and the loss of biodiversity require much more government intervention then had previously been assumed. This is not to say that this government intervention won’t rely heavily on the workings of the market system, but only that top-down regulation is absolutely necessary. There is simply no way to adequately address these issues without a strong commitment from the federal government, which will eventually include a high level of international cooperation. Policies such as absolute limits on CO2, government funding of alternative-energy systems, and coordinated efforts to purchase and protect biodiversity hotspots around the world will need to be a major component of future government policy.

Facing increased probabilities of natural disasters (many presumably due to global warming), the government should move us towards a more rational method of risk management in areas prone to natural disasters. It is highly inefficient, as well as an abrogation of government responsibility, to create incentives for people to live in areas that are both dangerous and prone to catastrophe by providing them with reconstruction aid every time disaster strikes. The government has two options; either require that all people living in hurricane zones, flood plains, or near fault lines purchase private insurance, or make it absolutely clear that people will not be compensated for their loss of property by the government if disaster strikes. Such a policy would no doubt lead to dramatic shifts in the population densities in many disaster-prone areas of the country, and perhaps some one-time assistance for relocation would be required. The net effect would be to dramatically reduce future losses of life and property and save the government hundreds of billions in future costs. It would also force private actors (notably insurance companies) to fully take into account the effects of environmental externalities that until now have largely been ignored.

Regarding personal health and risk, the government must play a much more active role than typically advocated by some of the strongest proponents of free markets. Milton Friedman famously noted that there is no use for the Food and Drug Administration since companies whose products lead to illness will be forced out of the market (i.e., products that make people sick will not be bought). What he failed to realize is that if someone gets sick, it is extremely difficult to trace the source of the illness, and without government regulation many companies that poison consumers could in fact operate profitably for long periods of time. But Friedman did have a point in that as people look more and more toward government to regulate the economy, they sometimes do decrease the effort they invest in making wise choices for themselves (e.g., does anyone really need the government to tell them that “fast food” is bad for you?). This being said, it is clear that in this highly complex and inter-connected system, where we all are exposed to thousands of chemicals a year, many of which interact in ways that aren’t yet fully understood, where it is hard to trace the origin of products, and where the effects of these products often don’t manifest for years, the government must play an active role in regulation. The information problems are too complex for individuals to cope with (and, unfortunately, governments, at this point). The Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture should all be well-funded, be decoupled from conflicts of interest with industry, and their mandate to protect the public welfare through rational risk assessment should be strengthened.

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Identify the part of speech for the word "but" in each sentence.no one answered the ad but me. () there is but one choice to mak
vova2212 [387]
Here are the answers to the given sentences above:
-N<span>o one answered the ad but me. It is used as PREPOSITION.
-T</span><span>here is but one choice to make in this case.  It is used as an ADVERB.
-S</span><span>adie said she would go but she had to bring her sister. It is used as a CONJUNCTION.
Hope this helps.</span>
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Please help?!?!
fomenos
That woman that looks at herself in the mirror for long minutes is very vain. Vain means excessively proud of one's appearence so when someone spends too much time in a mirror, they are considered vain. I have seen this in my daily life because so many women and men spend too much time in front of a mirror just looking at themeselves not even fixing up.

3 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • 'let's not sell this house' ,said sangita.(into indirect speech)​
    15·1 answer
  • A lack of corroboration indicates that
    10·1 answer
  • What is the first step in developing a resaearch paper? Conduct research or choose a topic
    13·1 answer
  • Read these sentences from Leo Tolstoy's What Men Live By:
    9·2 answers
  • Which word or words are the conjunctions in this sentence?
    14·1 answer
  • 3.In the context of the text, what is good and how do we know? How does Elie Wieseldetermine what is right and how people should
    10·1 answer
  • Write one haiku poems ?? PLEASE HELP ME I'm not good at writing poems
    10·2 answers
  • compose a paragraph about your day, a class, an activity you are involved in or your trip from home to school. Within the paragr
    13·2 answers
  • Who told Leibowitz about what Ruby and Victoria had done the night before?
    7·1 answer
  • Violent media can be harmful. My utopia will discourage violent media.
    11·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!