Answer:
Coal.
Explanation:
Fish can reproduce to make more.
Wood can be obtained by growing trees.
Now we're down to soil and coal. Soil cannot be created like water, but it is a substance that is almost endless.
As for coal, it cannot be created but for thousands of years.
Your answer is coal.
Answer:
Porter purposefully leaves out many elements from the story in order to underline the theme of reality versus appearance. Mrs Whipple is obsessed and even paralyzed with fear that other people from the village might look down on the family or even pity them. By investing so much energy into hiding their perceived "dirty laundry" from other people, she has started hiding the truth from herself too. That is the root of all ambiguity in the story; the reader has to do a detective work to unearth the truth and figure out the true relations between the family members.
Explanation:
Here are three other examples of uncertain or ambiguous elements.
<u>We never get to hear the proper voices of Adna or Emly, the other two children.</u> How are they coping with their brother's incapacity? Are they angry with their mother for favoring him at the dinner table even at the price of their being hungry? We don't get to hear any of that from them. Their mother is the main myth maker in the family, and the only tension is between her vision of the family and the truth that the reader is trying to fathom.
Another ambiguous element is <u>how He came to be that way</u>. Was He born "simple-minded" or did something happen that affected His capability? In this story, we have to work with what Mrs Whipple has given us - and that's a twisted story full of little lies that even she fails to catch up on.
The reader also has to face the question <u>why Mrs Whipple constantly exposes Him to dangerous situations while still acting overprotective at the dinner table</u>. For example, she sends Him to snatch a piglet from its mother when Adna refuses to do it. A mother who truly cares for her disabled son would have done it herself, or had her husband do it. Another such situation is when she sends him to bring the bull.
<em>Would a prediction be accurate if the person about to act becomes aware of the prediction prior to the act itself? </em>
This is a classic problem of the deterministic approach to action. If psychology was perfect, it is likely that this would enable psychologists to predict how a person is going to act in any situation. It would also make psychologists able to predict when this act would take place. However, for such a prediction to be useful, the psychologist would have to keep this information from the subject. Otherwise, the knowledge of the prediction could potentially make the person act in a different way, rendering the prediction obsolete.
<em>Does the fact that a prediction can be known in advance disprove the possibility of predicting accurately or is that fact just one more antecedent condition? </em>
The fact that a prediction can be known in advance does disprove the possibility of predicting accurately. The moment a prediction is made, the prediction alters the state of the components that were necessary to know in order to make a prediction. Therefore, the prediction becomes obsolete as the action might or might not happen in the way that was previously predicted.
