1. The hamburger came from Hamburg, Germany, and the hot dog came from Frankfurt. - compound sentence
A sentence which contains two independent clauses with related ideas is referred to as a compound sentence.
One way to punctuate a compound sentence correctly is to join the two independent clauses with a semicolon and a coordinating conjunction.
2.The idea of placing meat on a bun, however, came from the United States. - simple sentence
A simple sentence is a form of sentence which has one independent clause and has no dependent clauses. It can stand alone for its meaning as a sentence.
3. When the hamburger first arrived in the United States, it was eaten raw.- complex sentence
The complex sentence refers to the sentence which contains at least one dependent clause and an independent clause. A dependent clause is the clause which cannot stand alone in its meaning on the other hand independent clause refers to the phrase which can stand alone, though both have a subject and a verb.
4. The French still prefer their meat rare, but the Germans eat raw hamburger meat. - compound sentence
5. Hamburgers first became popular among German immigrants who lived in Cincinnati.- complex sentence
I think it means that they were ready to prove it no matter what it took but not really sure since I haven’t read the whole story
The correct answer to the first question (what can be inferred by contrasting the ideas in the first two stanzas of the poem to the last stanza) is D) The awful tempest rages all night long and terrifies the speaker of the poem.
The first two stanzas, through adjectives like "awful" and "gaunt", expressions like "spectre's cloak" and "creatures", and verbs like "chuckled", "whistled" and "gnashed", convey that the tempest was terrifying, which can be understood by the speaker's word choice when telling the reader about it.
The last stanza shows that the storm lasted all night when the speaker says "morning lit", and, by expressing her relief and how peaceful she thought everything was after the storm had passed, the speaker intensifies the idea that it had been a terrifying storm. So, the correct answer to this question would be D.
Answer A is not correct because nothing indicates that the speaker would be fascinated by the storm, rather scared. Answer B is not correct because the tempest is not saddened by the morning sun, on the contrary, the speaker shows his relief and peace almost with happiness, which can be inferred by the presence of an exclamation mark in the last verse. Answer C is not correct because the tempest is not saddened at first, it is scary.
The correct answer to the second question (what device did Dickinson employ to create the effect in lines 1 and 2) is C) Paradox.
A paradox is a statement that seems to be contradictory in logic, that seems to not be true, but that also is not false. The speaker creates an absurd effect by using a paradox to describe the tempest when she suggests a storm with gaunt and few clouds. So, the correct answer to this question would be C.
Answer A isn't correct, the device used by Dickinson couldn't be an hyperbole because that figure of speech would cause the contrary effect; the storm would be shown like something grandiose and extremely terrifying, with an exaggerated connotation. Answer B isn't correct because there is no presence of an onomatopoeia in both lines since there is no written sound. Answer D isn't correct because the storm is not personified with human characteristics, rather the clouds are "gaunt", which is an adjective that can refer to objects.
The correct answer to the third question (why did Dickinson most likely use the phrase "black, as of a spectre's cloak" in the first stanza) is D) to create a feeling of darkness and gloom.
The black spectre's cloak mentioned is an image that describes how the gaunt and few clouds created a dark plain sky that covered the earth and the heaven, leaving everything dark and gloomy. That was the storm's appearance. Therefore, the correct answer to this question would be D.
Answer A is not correct because, although the storm could have been a dream, nothing in the poem indicates that it was; on the contrary, the description of the storm going away in the morning indicates that it wasn't a bad dream, but something real. Answer B is not correct because the black cloak mentioned doesn't transmit a sensation of coldness but of darkness. Answer C is not correct because the poem isn't comic, not even slightly, and this expression makes it even darker.
The correct answer to the last question (how does the poet convey the seriousness of the storm) is A) She uses personification to emphasize the impact of the storm.
When the poet describes the storm as a "monster" whose "faded eyes turned slowly to his native coast", she is using personification to emphasize how serious the storm was, as if it were like a monster with eyes that can turn, and with power and strength. Hence, the correct answer to this question is A.
Answer B isn't correct because neither does the poet use paradoxes in the last stanza nor does she show the storm as majestic. Answer C isn't correct because she doesn't use informal language and the storm seems to have been very serious and strong, and not the opposite. Answer D isn't correct because she doesn't show the changes that are coming through metaphors, the poet actually shows only the peaceful feeling that was left when the storm was gone.
