Mr. Praed says he knows nothing of Mrs. Warren's profession, but his behavior indicates otherwise. However, he does not seem bothered by the fact that Mrs. Warren is a "working woman." He is nonjudgmental. As an architect, he is not of the upper class, but of the middle class.
Mr. Crofts, however, is directly involved in Mrs. Warren's profession by the fact that he owns brothels. His moral sensibility is much worse than Mr. Praed's as a result. He is a member of the upper class and feels very entitled to his wealth--also lowering his moral sensibility.
The answer is “who” referring to one person
Answer:
George's decision to kill Lennie is reminiscent of when Candy's old dog was killed. Whether or not it was justifiable is a matter of opinion, but George's intentions were not doubt pure. George knew that Lennie would no doubt have an awful life even if he wasn't caught, for at that time it was very difficult living with a mental handicap. George wanted Lennie to die while happy.
How do the fallacies in the first passage differ from the fallacies in the second?
Explanation:
Passage 1 contains an ad hominem attack, while passage 2 contains a false dilemma. ... Passage 1 contains an appeal to emotion, while passage 2 contains an ad hominem attack.
All names, though some common and others strange are empowering. For example: The name Lloyd means "Sacred", Sultan means "King", Lilith means "Night", really its the meaning behind the names or even its origins that make it empowering. A name can be considered limited when it was made up by the mother and there is no exact definition behind the name or the name is short and it seems to have very little significance. The way we can make that our names are always empowering is to remember that our names are part of our identity, our names have value and a significance or definition behind that make us unique.
Hope this helps you hon :)
