Answer:
Atticus believes "trash' people are those without moral and goodness of the heart whereas Aunt Alexandria defines them as poor people who have no social status.
Explanation:
Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird is a story of the South where there are still some prejudices against black people. The Southern mentality against these people through the eyes of a young girl Scout shows us the life of a Southern state.
Atticus is the father of Jem and Scout who resides in Maycomb, Alabama. He is a lawyer and a very sensible and reasonable man. His decision to defend a black man from being wrongfully convicted shows his own mentality against such people. He shows that every man is an individual and has their own rights, and tries to teach his children the right way of life, as much as he can. Aunt Alexandria, on the other hand, hates black people and still maintains the same mentality of the majority of the people.
The two individuals have a different opinion of people who are "tr<em>a</em>sh". For Atticus, "<em>trash</em>" people are those people who have the wrong or bad personality and have no morals, like the people of Maycomb who think that a black man is bad just because of his skin color. Aunt Alexandria's definition of "<em>trash</em>" people is anyone who is poor and hardly has much social status. For her, social status and appearance matter a lot and don’t really believe in the possibility of goodness and poverty together in a person.
Answer:
Nature is those things acquired by genetic or hereditary influences. Nurture on the other hand is those things that are influenced by the environment we live in. ... An example of this debate is whether high blood pressure and obesity is a health risk that is passed genetically from parent to child.
Answer:
A. Emerson repeats the word consistency to emphasize his disapproval of compliant thinking.
Explanation:
In the book, 'Self Reliance', by Ralph Waldo Emerson, the author talked about people who wanted to be consistent in their actions. This consistency stems from the fact that they wanted to always please people who know them by certain actions or ways of life in the past. Since they do not want to be seen in a different light, they fall back to a consistent lifestyle in order to be consistent from others perspective.
Emerson condemned such compliant thinking because he was an advocate of people not being limited in their thinking. People, he believed should be able to explore and reason extensively. They should also learn from their mistakes at their own pace, not conforming to the ideas or dictates of others.
Hey there,
The following question's are the questions that I will answer.
When trying to distinguish between fiction and nonfiction, does the line between genres become blurred? Or, are there clear differences between these genres—like comparing apples to oranges? List and discuss the traits that you see in fiction and nonfiction works. Provide examples of each. Explain what you like and dislike about both fiction and nonfiction. What are some examples of works you have read that dance the line between both genres? Ultimately, would you rather read fiction or nonfiction?
Question #1
When trying to distinguish between fiction and nonfiction, does the line between genres become blurred?
Often, yes. Fiction and (non)-fiction can be very blurred when comparing. You have one genre that can totally be in a real case, and then you have (alot) of times where as fiction (itself) is just very (non) real. Like for example, "The Flintstones." That is fiction. We are not going to real live like them. They scrape there feet when they drive, (like who does that).
Question #2
Or, are there clear differences between these genres—like comparing apples to oranges?
Yes, not exactly all the time (fiction) & (non-fiction) is like this, but, the majority of the time,(fiction) & (non-fiction) can be like (apple & oranges)
Question #3
List and discuss the traits that you see in fiction and nonfiction works. Provide examples of each. Explain what you like and dislike about both fiction and nonfiction. What are some examples of works you have read that dance the line between both genres?
(Trait's that I see in fiction and nonfiction works. )
Some trait's that I see are that fiction works deal with alot of e.g: magic, human flying, and things that are not really real and things that can not be applied in real life. Now for the nonfiction work, this stuff would be real. I can apply movies like "paper town's) or "fault in our stars" and things like that. But things like "Batman (vs) Superman" and "Cars 3" and things like that are not real.
(Explain what you like and dislike about both fiction and nonfiction.)
I dont really like fiction. I love real life things. Things that can really happen in real life. I love that vibe. but also, I do like things like "spider-man" and things like that because they are cool. But I like more fiction things better. (opinion)
(What are some examples of works you have read that dance the line between both genres?)
Some things or (examples) that I know the align with both genre's would be things like "the way people feel" like you can tell in both genre's how the character feels. The things that are also things that line together would be things like (conflicts) and things like (exposition's) and (climax). They all either have (cliff hangers) and things that get a person excited. They also contain things like "love" and things like "romantic" and they also show different (POV). So those are some things that would have aligned together.
Question #4 (last question)
(Ultimately, would you rather read fiction or nonfiction?)
I would rather read (fiction). I like the real feel of when a story is true and not just a little fake things.
_____________________________________________________________
I really hope this helps you. I tried my hardest on this and I also hope this helps future people in (advance).
~Jurgen
After a thorough research, there exists the same question that has the full passage.
<span>One might think that proud English writers would welcome a broader readership. However, quite the opposite happened. Though scholars agreed that English was a great language, many felt that it was in danger. According to some scholars, when poorly educated people read, wrote, and spoke, they corrupted the English language.
Today, if you do not know how to spell a word, you look it up in the dictionary. During the early eighteenth century, there were few dictionaries. Those that did exist were mainly collections of difficult words or translation dictionaries (Latin to English, for example). There was no authority on the"correct" way to use or spell words.
</span>
The line in the passage that explains why English scholars felt a dire need to set standards for the English language is this one "<span>According to some scholars, when poorly educated people read, wrote, and spoke, they corrupted the English language."</span>
