This question is incomplete because the options are missing; here are the options:
Which character trait of Sherlock Holmes does this excerpt from "The Adventure of the Speckled Band" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle illustrate?
A. His ambitious nature
B. His perfectionist nature
C. His tendency to be cautious
D. His powers of observation
The correct answer is D. His power of observation
Explanation:
In this excerpt, the narrator describes how the detective Sherlock Holmes noticed the stains of mud in the jacket of the woman, and based on this evidence Holmes knew this woman had traveled on a train recently. This discovery requires specialized observation and analysis. Indeed, this shows Sherlock Holmes' power of observation because he was keen enough to notice the smears and then reach a valid conclusion as the woman admits Sherlock's conclusion is true "and came in by the first train to Waterloo."
I'll just post the text where the statement "note an irony in my argument" is found.
The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument. My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of our self-conception and that commitment to it requires the rejection of official dogma. But how is that admittedly dogmatic belief different from any other dogma, such as the one inferring that freedom of expression stops at the border of the flag?
The crucial distinction is that the commitment to freedom of conscience and expression states the simplest and least self-contradictory principle that seems to capture our aspirations. Any other principle is hopelessly at odds with our commitment to freedom of conscience. The controversy surrounding the flag-burning case makes the case well.
The controversy will rage precisely because burning the flag is such a powerful form of communication. Were it not, who would care? Thus were we to embrace a prohibiton on such communication, we would be saying that the 1st Amendment protects expression only when no one is offended. That would mean that this aspect of the 1st Amendment would be of virtually no consequence. It would protect a person only when no protection was needed. Thus, we do have one official dogma-each American may think and express anything he wants. The exception is expression that involves the risk of injury to others and the destruction of someone else`s property. Neither was present in this case.
I do not see an essay, sorry
Answer:
Explanation:
as I went to sleep last night, I heard the doorbell. I wondered who might it be. I slowly left my bed and walked towards the door. And as I opened it ....Ii felt a bit pain on my head ....I shouted as loud as I could ...and I realized that it was a dream..it was quite unexpected for a girl like me to shout while dreaming..............
