Hello. This question is incomplete. The full question is:
Yesterday I cleaned my closet and dusted it thoroughly. I found receipts in a few of my jeans. I folded them neatly and put them in my drawer. I found an old box decorated with ribbons and a pink bow. It still looked pretty and new. In the bottom drawer, there was a bottle of perfume that Mom bought in Sweden. The perfume is old, but it still has a fresh, flowery scent. Next to the perfume there was an old postcard that Dad sent when he visited China.
Which two pronouns in the paragraph have unclear antecedents?
Answer:
The pronouns "this" and "it" have unclear antecedents.
Explanation:
The precedent of a pronoun is the word to which the pronoun is referring. When the pronoun has an unclear and defined precedent it means that it may be referring to more than one term in the text and it is not possible to identify which term it is.
In the text shown in the question above, we have two examples of pronouns with unclear antecedents. The first example is the pronoun "them" in the phrase "I found receipts in a few of my jeans. I folded them neatly and put them in my drawer," where the pronoun can refer to both the word "receipts" and the word " jeans".
The second example is found in the pronoun "it", in the phrase "I found an old box decorated with ribbons and a pink bow. It still looked pretty and new," where the first name can refer to both the word "box" and the word "bow".
Answer:
Graffiti should be considered a crime. If someone calls vandalizing other peoples property art, then that person is wrong. Graffiti is wrong because it is done on properties that the artist do not own , most of the time graffiti is disrespectful, and it is very costly to the community.
Graffiti is wrong because it is done on properties that the artist do not own. If someone was to vandalize another persons home with graffiti written on it, that person would feel very disrespected. Although sometimes graffiti is beautiful, we would not want a person to vandalize our property and have them call it art. It would be fine if a graffiti artist were to draw on their own property because it belongs to them. It is very disrespectful for someone to draw on someone else's property without permission. Which brings me to my second point.
Most of the time graffiti is disrespectful. The artist have no concern on what they draw that might offend other people who have the chance to see it. Graffiti artist are truly gifted, so this means they can make their art look very realistic. Someone might say, if someone does not want to see it then they should not look. Whoever might say that is very wrong. Graffiti artist tend to draw art on almost anything that they can. This means they draw it for the public to see, whether the public wishes to see it or not. Some graffiti artist do not care what they write, but parents do. A parents does not want to walk with their child somewhere crowded, and see something inappropriate drawn or written for their child to see. Which brings me to my third and final point.
Graffiti is very costly to the community to get it removed. That is why graffiti artist should not draw offensive things, but they do anyway and the community has to pay to get it removed. This is just like the app Instagram. If someone were to post something offensive towards the public, someone would report it, so it could get removed because what they saw were either offensive to them, their children, or they were thinking about everyone else that might come across that post. This relates to graffiti. If the community were to leave something that were offensive to the community there would be problems, not small problems, but big enough problems that could get people hurt.
Although graffiti is a wonderful thing to see, it should be called a crime because it can corrupt young minds and cause problems.
Explanation:
Sorry if this is not what you were looking for!
The slope of line c would be 1
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
In Julius Caesar, Cassius was able to convince Brutus to join in the plan to eliminate Caesar even as Brutus was already wondering if Caesar would be swayed by power and seek to subjugate lesser people, he compared Caesar to a serpent "which, hatched, would as his kind grow mischievous”; thus, he determines to “kill him in the shell”.
Cassius and other conspirators,Casca, Decius, Cinna, Metellus, and Trebonius visit Brutus in his home in Act II, Scene I and talk about how to eliminate Caesar. Cassius suggest they take an oath but Brutus declines, saying their cause is stronger than any oath. The group become worried that Caesar may not come out because of the words of an augur that foresaw the event and warned Caesar but Decius assures them that he can convince Caesar to make an appearance at the Capitol by flattering him about his bravery.
Cassius is worried about Antony and suggests he is also eliminated by Brutus disagrees by saying it would make things too bloody.
B
