In Act III, Scene 3, Hamlet has an opportunity to kill Claudius, but he doesn't act because he doesn't want to risk sending Claudius to heaven by killing him in prayer. Hamlet doesn't want to break the decorum. He wants to surprise a villain in some vile deed and kill him at that. "<span>He took my father grossly, full of bread,
</span><span>With all his crimes broad blown, as flush as May." If Claudius didn't care about his brother's immortal soul, Hamlet should now pay extra attention to Claudius' soul and do his best to send it to hell. </span>The very thought of the risk stops his sword.
Hamlet's inaction in Scene 3 is not just a result of plain superstition. Hamlet doesn't just want to kill and annihilate Claudius; he symbolically and unequivocally condemns his uncle's soul to hell. However, one scene later, he kills Polonius, mistaking him for Claudius. All his restraints are now off, and he is free to kill the person hiding behind the curtain.
This plot choice clearly shows that Hamlet always acts like an intellectual, even when he is hurt and offended. He has to rationalize both his inaction and his action. More precisely, thinking always precedes (and motivates) his actions and inactions. Irony has it that his action is misdirected, once it happens.
By the way, the R.A.C.E. analytical method contains Restatement, Answer, Citation, and Explanation. I think I've covered all the elements here.
Your answer is B. The passage is vividly describing a setting so it is descriptive.
Answer:
I have been to the Gulf of Mexico.
Answer:
D. To show readers that internet ads can influence young voters.
Missouri would be admitted to the union as a slave state and Maine as a free state.
