Answer:
D. Jonas raises an army to violently overthrow the industry leaders.
Explanation:
A contrived ending to the story is one created in a way that seems artificial and unrealistic. The most contrived ending would be the one where Jonas raises an army to violently overthrow the industry leaders.
The rest of the options seem more or less possible. Jonas' supporters could turn their back on him, the industry leaders' plan could backfire, or they could ruin Jonas' reputation. These endings would seem believable. However, it would be impossible for Jonas to raise an army. An individual wouldn't be able to do that in real life, which is why this type of ending wouldn't make sense.
Answer:
basically its from adjectives. i dont know
the book but thats for the first question
Explanation:
Can you please include a photo of the passage?
<span>Bonaparte was regarded by all of Europe except France as a megalomaniac cruel tyrant - until about 1812. By the end of that year, there was a powerful anti-Bonaparte opposition developing in France also. The carnage that accompanied his reign/rule/administration came to be feared and hated by the French themselves once the glorious days of repeated victory were passed. Unfortunately, the French and the Allies through the Congress of Vienna were unable to provide a viable and credible alternative head of state, so that Napoleon-nostaglia returned within 10 years of his death.
However, Bonaparte did introduce innovations not only in France but throughout Europe and the western world, and they are noteworthy. First, he provided a rational basis for weights and measures instead of the thousands of alternative measures that had been in use for centuries. We call it the Metric System and it works well in all of science and technology, and in commerce except in USA and a few other places.
Second, he introduced an integrated system of civil and criminal laws which we call the Napoleonic Code. Some parts of it have been problematical (notably the inheritance laws) and need reforming, but it has stood the test of 200 years, and is well understood. Even the later monarchies and republics in France continued to use the Code; so well was it thought out.
Third, he introduced the Continental System of agriculture and free trade between (occupied) nations. It remains as a model for the European Union and worked well in its own day. Even the Confederation of the Rhine, which led to the creation of the Zolverein and then to a unified Germany, was based on Bonapartist principles. I don't think the Germans or anyone else is willing to recognise this intellectual debt today.
Fourth, he promoted French science and learning which had been damaged so badly by the Revolution. Medicine, chemistry, physics, astonomy and economics were all encouraged so that French higher education became a model for the century - to be emulated by any modern country with pretentions to culture.
Despite all these, Bonaparte was a mass murderer; of the French as well as other peoples in Europe. He engaged in military campaigns, backed by an elitist philosophy, to extend French hegemony and can be recognised today in all that was wrong with Nazi domination of Europe and now in USA plans for the domination of the rest of the world.
For a short time, he was a military and administrative success but his legacy was one of poverty, defeat and a distrust of the French. He seemed to offer a glorious change to French history, in which the French became winners of wars. In reality, he was just another winner of battles but, ultimately, he confirmed the French experience of losing every war in which they have engaged. Such a pity for a man of potential and flair, but his early success simply went to his head and he seemed to believe that he was invincible and omnipotent. That's a good definition of a megalomaniac, don't you think?</span>
Answer:
Reliably ensuring safe drinking water to the general public is a vital role of local and state govts. Across the US, govt. officials and public water system managers are discovering means to ensure water security. One technique for increasing public drinking water safety which has got the notice of water officials and the general public is reverting treated waste-water to the drinking water supply.
As California struggles for techniques to cope with its severe drought and the obligatory water limitations imposed, an assortment of ideas which were long let go as controversial, unpleasant, or expensive are getting a second look. One is conserving more water, another is turning to nearby and copious water sources such as the Pacific Ocean into drinking water via desalination, and another is to re-cycle the water citizens have used. And there lies a marketing problem which can be greater than a technological problem.
Water re-cycling is common for uses such as delivering water to golf courses, farms, and zoos and for irrigation purposes. At a grass-root level, activists urge residents to save water from showers, bathroom sinks, washing machines, and tubs to water their gardens and plants. The procedures at Orange County comprise microfiltration which eliminates whatever greater than 0.2 microns, eradicating all suspended solids, protozoa and bacteria.
After which is reverse osmosis that comprise pushing the water across a membrane that eradicates other impurities, as well as pharmaceuticals, dissolved minerals, and viruses. A zap with strong ultraviolet light and little hydrogen peroxide cleanses further and neutralises other small chemical compounds. Alluring people to drink re-cycled water, nevertheless, necessitates getting over what specialists refer to as the ‘yuck’ factor.
From a marketing viewpoint, utilising treated sewage to generate drinking water is a proposal which has proved challenging to sell to consumers. The inevitable prudishness over drinking water which was once waste disregards an essential fact, that when it comes down to it, water is water, and everybody who lives downstream on a river is drinking re-cycled water.