Answer:
What kind of a question is this...?
Explanation:
There is nothing to explain lol
1. The appearance of a ghost is reported.
2. Hamlet says he disapproves of his mother's remarriage.
3. Hamlet contemplates.
4. Hamlet verbally abuses Ophelia.
5. Ophelia dies.
6. Laertes is killed in a sword fight.
7. Fortinbras takes over the throne.
<u>Explanation:</u>
The apparition of the King of Denmark advises his child Hamlet to retaliate for his homicide by murdering the new lord, Hamlet's uncle. Hamlet fakes frenzy, examines life and demise, and looks for vengeance. His uncle, dreading for his life, likewise devises plots to murder Hamlet.
Hamlet is a retribution disaster written in the line of Roman Senecan catastrophe. At the point when the play closes all the significant characters are dead making the catastrophe a flat out one. Hamlet's dad has been killed by his uncle and his mom weds the criminal after her significant other's demise.
Answer: B. challenging established ideas.
Explanation: In the given conversation, we can see that Han is asking a question about a published article, he is asking about whether or not the article was biased because the writer could only want to stir up a controversy to get money and fame. By asking that question Han is showing the group discussion technique of challenging established ideas, so the correct answer is option B.
Answer: The answer is you can neither be fully supportive of the either. In fact the battle will go on or you may the arguments will perhaps get louder in the years to come.
Explanation: None of the nations wants to back from using a lucrative resources that they chance upon fully knowing the repercussions of climate change and various other damaging havoc that can impact the entire earth.
The greed in humans cannot be killed and perhaps we already are paying a heavy price for it. The conservationists believe the usage of the resources should be done in a responsible manner.
The supply need not be jeopardised for the future generations but no objections in continuing to use them though. Sustainability is the argument that they propound.
The preservationists are purists in the true sense they don't want to disturb mother nature and allow them to flourish in their pristine form and we continue to live in harmony with that.
The intrinsic value of the land and other resources have to retained and gained inspiration for its beauty and serenity. It is the theory that preservationists have stuck too for years.
Each is right in their own way, if we don't use the natural resources we won't be able to function as well as we do.
If we don't preserve some of the natural resources and stick our head into every resource on the surface of the earth, there will be large destruction and extinction of flora and fauna.
Hence it would be right to say, that we need to rethink what we are going to do because in the next few years what we do will determine our future and there is no going back then.
