<span>Coherent is the anwser
</span>
Stream-of-consciousness is a very stylistic form of free indirect discourse. It is not spontaneous, or unintentional, or anything of the sort. In fact, if anything, it's just the opposite. It's highly stylized, but also purposeful and calculating. It sees the world wholly through the character's mind instead of through their senses, save for how the mind and the senses interact.
It relates to a lot of things - free association, synesthesia, free indirect discourse, without actually being any of them.
<span>There's only a handful of writers that can actually do stream-of-consciousness writing with any success - Joyce and Faulkner come to mind immediately. In short, there's nothing wrong with trying it, but there's also nothing wrong with not having done that, but having done, say, free association instead.</span>
Not 100% sure, but in my opinion I would say B. Personification.
<span>The flawed logic in this statement exemplifies A) post hoc. Post hoc is a result of something that occurs after a particular event, that also contains flawed assumption that this result has a logical relationship with the represented event. As you can see, this sentence is build following the principle cause and effect, but if you pay attention to the contents you will see that it makes no sense.</span>
Answer:
D.nonrestrictive and A.interrupter
Explanation:
