A foil is the near complete opposite of the main character (whichever character they want you to find a foil for).
Rainsford and Whitney were good hunting friends with numerous similar interests. They could not be foils because of how close in similarity they were. Even when they disagreed on how animals felt about being hunted, Whitney seemed open to and intrigued by Rainsford's points and way of thinking.
Ivan is a near irrelevant character, being a mere Cossack who follows whatever General Zaroff says. He is mindless and has almost zero traits to even compare to Rainsford, let alone any traits aside from a mindless follower to begin with.
The answer would be General Zaroff. This is almost like the cliche protagonist vs antagonist foil. Both of them are hunters, but different kinds. Zaroff got bored with animals and wanted to hunt human people instead, whereas Rainsford had enjoyed the thrill of an animal hunt and thinks that the hunting of people is murder. Zaroff is more heartless and cold, a killer, if you will. Rainsford seems to think highly of actual people, and had no interest in playing Zaroff's game.
Answer: All right, here goes nothing. *cracks knuckles*
To begin with, the article has a weak claim. While it does vaguely introduce their stance on the topic, it poses it as a question and not a statement. Also, this claim is written in the first person, unlike strong claims that are supposed to be written in the third person. As for the "support" section, even the very beginning strays from the original claim, instead saying why <em>they </em>should own a pet instead of why <em>everyone</em> should be allowed to own pets. For example, in the second paragraph, the author cites a story from a friend of a friend. That is not valid evidence. If it was on the news, however, and the author cited that as evidence instead, the article would be much stronger. The author also delves deeper into their own personal life instead of stating facts as they should have. The transition between paragraphs is clunky at best, with the third paragraph pretty much restating the claim instead of simply saying something like "Pets are helpful to our society." And finally, the entire purpose of that last sentence seems to be to wrap up the article in a hasty fashion, without any attention to restating the claim or the facts presented.
Hope this meets the criteria! Good luck!!
Answer: That door is narrow so, The car cannot go inside the garage
I was wrong so, My teacher said this/ My teacher said i was worng
I looked for my keys and, they were nowhere to be found
Explanation:
Thanking as they are Coming back from the military with good good news
The correct answer is A; Hester's fear and Roger's cunningness.
Explanation:
In the book, The Scarlett Letter, Hester Prynne and Roger Chillingworth are main characters. Roger's main goal in chapter 4 is to find out the father of Hester's baby. He plans to see the father put to death for his "alleged" crime of fathering her child.
Hester lived during a time that women were not allowed to speak for themselves and were meant to stay quiet about everything. She was branded with the letter S on her breast because of her dishonor and shame to her family.
The book was written and published in 1850 by author, Nathaniel Hawthorne.
The symbols in the book are;
- Dimmesdale's name
- The Scarlet Letter A
- Meteor
- Pearl
- Rosebush
- The Scaffold
Learn more about the book, The Scarlett Letter, at brainly.com/question/9803062
#LearnwithBrainly
