Answer:
<h2> "The Antidote to Curb Cheating in the BECE"</h2>
Cheating is characterized as malpractice that not only affects the physical and mental health of the students but also prevents a fair competition. This directly affects the mental stability of the diligent students as well as they are being denied to their basic rights that cause a sense of discontentment and unwillingness to work hard which is detrimental to their growth and development. Thus, it has quadruple effects including the parents and teachers.
In order to resolve this problem in the BECE, the assessment style need to be altered. The assessment must test the intellectuality of the students and clarity of the concept using fresh examples(unplagiarized or copied) and arranging a blend of formative and summative assessments for them. This will compel the students to have clarity of the concept before answering the question and prevent cheating. Another way is to aware the students from the very beginning of their schooling about the significance of personal integrity and the ill-effects of cheating on their health, career, and life. This will help instill a feeling into the students to do things on their own and focus on their authentic learning and growth instead of relying upon cheating. This will promote the students towards real learning rather than just completing the formality.
By
Sophie.
Answer:
"Coriolanus Snow: The evil president is named for another Roman, one who was immortalized in the Shakespeare play with the same name. Shakespeare's Coriolanus supported the power of aristocrats over the common people."
Excerpt from textbook.
Hope this helps :)
Is there options? Maybe the line "Ravage other folk by the sea" is ironic because cyclops's are the sons of Poseidon the sea god. But not totally sure
Answer:
Explanation:
The essay initially pretends to be a critique of a type of self-improvement book popular at the time, which claimed to tell how to achieve success. These books defined success strictly in financial terms and assumed that if anyone follows certain steps, they will be able to duplicate the accomplishments of wealthy business owners. However, Chesterton’s review of these books includes a broader social criticism. The focus on the definition of success strictly in terms of money is central to his essay. But wrapped around that issue is the idea that each person can or should perceive success on the same terms as a business leader. He illustrates the point by saying a donkey is successful at being a donkey as much as a millionaire is successful at being a millionaire, so there is no point in calling a donkey a failed millionaire or vice versa.
To counter the common assumptions about success, Chesterton describes people in various walks of life and how each might more realistically succeed. In this description, he suggests that these books falsely pretend to help people succeed in their own social circles and encourage people to try to become something they are not and cannot ever be.
Chesterton says these writers tell the ordinary man how he may succeed in his career—if he is a builder, he may succeed as a builder; or if he is a stockbroker, he may succeed as a stockbroker. Chesterton increases his satire at this point, commenting that the authors say a grocer may become a sporting yachtsman; a tenth-rate journalist may become a peer, which is a British nobleman; and a German Jew may become an Anglo-Saxon. Obviously, these transitions are unlikely or even impossible. Chesterton then criticizes the main assumption of these books and the society that produces it. By claiming that average people can follow in the steps of business tycoons such as Rothschild or Vanderbilt, the book's author is taking part in "the horrible mysticism of money," in which people worship the unlikely possibility of achieving great riches.
