Answer:
Lindbergh book was a chance for women to think outside the box, in 1950.
She instigates the reader to confront the unknow, so that he or she can experience new things.
Explanation:
In her book Lindbergh talks about relationships, specially marriage, and how women could be more than just a housewife, and how would be healthier for married people to be able to develop their own individuality.
When she instigates the reader to confront the unknown, it is a powerful and positive thing to do, because when we explore new things our lives change. Our horizon expands and our minds become more inclined to accept new things.
The unknown might seen a little bit unconfortable in the beginning, but then, it shifts us. Narrowmind thoughts are no longer allowed and we are suddenly susceptible to new points of view. For instance, a very simple example is a place or city that you had never being before, in the first moment you might not like it, but as soon as you start exploring, knowing and learning about it, you will be surprised with the amount of great stuff you will experience.
The best conclusion is Lindbergh conclusion, "the unknown is not to be feared". She is right. We should be delighted by the unknown, the expectations, the mistery behind it. That is the beauty of life. That is what makes life spontaneous and amazing. We never have the same day twice.
Answer:
A.
Explanation:
The Fall of the House of Usher is a short Gothic story written by Edgar Allan Poe.
The story is about the narrator's visit to his friend, Roderick Usher's house. The narrator arrives at his friend's house and describes the structure of the house.
<u>In the given excerpt, the narrator is describing the Usher's ancient house which is unearthly. The narrator observes the antiquity of the Usher's age-old mansion. The mansion is 'discolored' and 'fungi' is spread over the mansion. The narrator tells that even though the mansion is old none of its portion is fallen or broken. </u>
The wild inconsistency that he is talking about in the excerpt is about the contrast between the parts that are perfectly adapted and the conditions of the stone that was crumbling.
So, the correct answer is option A.
Answer: A. Numbering of sources
MLA or Modern Language Association is one of the most frequently used citation style in research. In MLA style, there has to be a consistent font size, the entries must be arrange alphabetically and double spacing is required. Numbering of sources is not necessary.
It has been frequently and rightly remarked that the Crito is unique among
Plato’s dialogues insofar as its primary concern is what Socrates ought to do.
2
Most interpreters assume that Socrates ought to do what seems best to his reason (Cr 46b3-6); thus, most interpretations defend the rationality of obedience
or disobedience. On my account, it is not at all obvious that Socrates ought to
do what seems best to his reason. On my account, Socrates does not do what
seems best to his reason because he does not reason about whether he should
obey the laws; he simply obeys the laws. Doubtless, this claim seems counterintuitive to many; after all, does not Socrates articulate and defend his reasons
for remaining in prison from 49c to 54c? Is it not the cogency of Socrates’ reasons
for remaining in prison that have been so thoroughly debated in the scholarship summarized below? My answer to both of these questions is ‘no.’ Perhaps
counter-intuitively I claim that the reasons for remaining in prison, from Crito
49c to54c, are not Socrates’ reasons; they are the arguments of the speaking laws
of Athens
Answer:
B. He made him some moccasins for his sore feet!
Explanation:
I don't really have a thorough explanation as to I haven't read the book but i read parts :)
But in this part;
Also, the dog-driver rubbed Buck's feet for half an hour each night after supper, and sacrificed the tops of his own moccasins to make four moccasins for Buck.
It says that the dog diver rubbed buck's feet and made for moccasins!
Your welcome!! :)
