Answer: Synthesis is the answer A.Synthesis.
Explanation: synthesizing simply mean combining
The correct answer is:
The voice affects consistency of tone and the amount of bias revealed.
Explanation:
Voice, in literature, is what we hear when we read the work of a specific author, it is created by the format of the author's writing, while in a spoken language it would be the sound of the voice.
Tone, on the other hand, is the attitude and feelings of the author towards the writing, and it is reflected in the choice of words of the writer to express those feelings to the audience, in a spoken language it would be the actual tone of the voice when someone speaks. Voice affects consistency in tone and the amount of bias revealed because the format used to write a suspense novel, or an ironic comedy would change to express the actual purpose of the writing.
First, it signals the end of Bill and Mary's attempt at conversation, startling Mary into the present.
If the lights symbolize truth or revelation, then their sudden brightness represents the irrefutable passage of time and the impossibility of ever recovering or re-doing the past. That the lights run "the whole length of Fifth Avenue" further emphasizes the completeness of this truth; there is no way to escape the passage of time.
It's worth noting that the lights turn on right after Bill says, "You ought to see my kids" and grins. It's a surprisingly unguarded moment, and it's the only expression of genuine warmth in the story. It's possible that his and Mary's children might represent those lights, being the brilliant chains that link the past with an ever-hopeful future.
It seems that the BJP government’s decision to illegalise the sale of cattle for slaughter at animal markets has its roots in a PIL that quotes the five-yearly Gadhimai festival in Nepal, where thousands of buffaloes are taken from India to be sacrificed to ‘appease’ Gadhimai, the goddess of power.
The contradictions that emerge from cattle – here encompassing all bovines – slaughter rules in Nepal perplex many: despite being predominantly Hindu, animal sacrifice continues to be practised. Cow slaughter is explicitly prohibited even in Nepal’s new constitution since it is the national animal, yet the ritual sacrifice of buffaloes and the consumption of their meat is not frowned upon. There is also, in marked contrast to the Indian government’s blanket approach to cattle terminology, a lucid distinction between cows (both the male and female) and other ‘cattle’ species (such as buffaloes and yaks).
The emergence of this contradictory, often paradoxical, approach to cattle slaughter in Nepal is the result of a careful balancing act by the rulers of modern Nepal. The Shah dynasty and the Rana prime ministers often found themselves at a crossroads to explicitly define the rules of cattle slaughter. As rulers of a perceived ‘asal Hindu-sthan’, their dharma bound them to protect the cow – the House of Gorkha borrows its name from the Sanskrit ‘gou-raksha’ – but as they expanded into an empire, their stringent Brahminic rules came into conflict with des-dharma, or existing local customs, where cattle-killing was a norm. What followed was an intentionally ambiguous approach to cattle slaughter, an exercise in social realpolitik.
