Answer:
1. She walks smartly.
2. Bill sleeps quietly on the couch.
3. John dances so well.
4. He laughed.
5. Dan is jumping.
Explanation:
Intransitive sentences are sentences that have verbs which doesn't require a direct object. In the sentence above, jumping, dances, laughed, sleeps and walked are all Intransitive verbs. Also, the subjects in the sentences are : She, Bill, Dan, He and John.
Answer:I managed to find the complete exercise on the Internet, given that you haven't provided us with all options given to you.
1. cogitating = contemplating
To cogitate means to think about something (cogito in Latin literally means 'to think). Contemplating means to mull over a couple (or a lot) of options which is what Mr. Gamefield is doing in the excerpt above - he is thinking of ways to pay his rent.
2. cudgeling = beating
A cudgel is a short stick which you can use as a weapon. So if you cudgel something or someone, it means that you are beating them with a cudgel, because it is a thick stick, almost like a bat. So this person was metaphorically cudgeling his brain, but literally cudgeling his donkey.
3. regaled = rewarded
The verb to regale has two meanings - it can either mean 'to entertain someone,' or it can mean 'to supply someone with something.' Here, the latter meaning is used - the donkey thought he would be given a cabbage-stalk or two for his hard work
Explanation:
<span>Because your
goal for this essay is to discuss how Shakespeare transformed the original
source, you’ll want to focus, first, on what they both have in common (comparing
similar attributes). Then, you’ll want
to focus on how elements of similarities were changed or how new things
entirely were added or how things may have even been omitted (contrast). This can be done in one of two ways—block or
point by point.
</span>
<span />
<span>If you
format the essay in block format, you’ll first discuss in a paragraph or two
elements selected for discussion in “Pyramus and Thisbe.” Then, after you finish discussing Ovid’s myth,
you’ll discuss, also in a paragraph or two, the elements being
compared/contrasted in Shakespeare’s work.
Be sure to discuss the same points in the same order in block
method. A compare/contrast essay in this
method might resemble the following:</span>
INTRO
PARAGRAPH
BODY PARAGRAPH
– Ovid
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
BODY
PARAGRAPH – Shakespeare
Attribute 1
Attribute 2
Attribute 3
CONCLUSION
<span>Another
method used when constructing a compare/contrast essay is called point by
point. In this format, you will discuss
elements of both works within the same paragraph and do so point by point. An essay constructed in this manner might
resemble the following: </span>
INTRODUCTION
PARAGRAPH
Attribute
from Ovid
Same attribute
from Shakespeare
PARAGRAPH
Attribute
from Ovid
Same attribute
from Shakespeare
PARAGRAPH
Attribute
from Ovid
Same attribute
from Shakespeare
CONCLUSION
<span>In this type
for format, be sure to always discuss the same work first. Thus, Ovid should always be mentioned first,
then you’ll follow that up with a discussion of Shakespeare because, after all,
you are supposed to be discussing how Shakespeare changed things, and this
would make the most sense. Point by
point would probably be the most efficient manner in which to highlight the
transformations made by Shakespeare since it would keep both elements fresh
within the mind/eye of the reader.</span>
Julius Caesar is a play deeply concerned with the idea of rhetoric, or persuasion. The play is driven by persuasion. Cassius convinces Brutus that Caesar must die, setting the story in motion. The resolution of the plot is decided by Antony's speech to the plebeians. Shakespeare sees rhetoric as one of the most powerful forces in the world; able to topple kings and crown them. The play, Julius Caesar, examines what gives rhetoric its power by pitting Brutus's speech against Mark Antony's. Shakespeare shows Antony's rhetoric to be superior by the effect he has on the plebeians.
Brutus's speech fails to convince permanently win over the crowd because he does not understand them. His first failure is at the beginning of his speech when he asks the plebeians to, "Censure me in you wisdom, and awake your senses". It seems as though he does not realize that he is speaking to an angry mob. His argument is based on cold and calculating reason. He argues that the love of freedom is stronger than the ties of friendship. "Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more". This logic cannot sink deeply into an emotional mob. He asks the plebeians to "Believe me for mine honor, and have respect to mine honor that you may believe". He cannot use his honor as a reason for belief in his story when his honor is in question. Brutus fails to offer any proof of Caesar's ambition, the central point of his argument. He ends his speech with a verbal attack on any who disagree with him, essentially calling them cowards. This silences dissension temporarily but when the other side is presented it does not help his cause. Brutus's argument fails because he much less a man of the people than he would like to think.
Mark Antony's argument is a great piece of rhetoric. He successfully accomplishes his object of convincing the plebeians that Brutus is a traitor. He has mastered the use of emotion, subtlety and logic. He uses emotional phrases such as, "My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar" and "Oh judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts". Which give him a connection with the emotion the crowd is feeling at the death of Caesar. He begins not by attacking Brutus..
Answer:
It was ok. How was yours?
Explanation:
