Answer:
pa brainliest answer po follow me follow back and pa heart po thankssssss
Explanation:
no one would have believed in
he last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man’s and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutnised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency men went to and fro over this globe about their little affairs, serene in their assurance of their empire over matter. It is possible that the infusoria under the microscope do the same. No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable.
<h3>H.G. Wells, The War of the Worlds</h3>
Answer:
Explanation:
1= Mahima said "I'm going now."
2= Rahul said to her, " where are you going?"
3= "Why do you want to know?", asked Mahima.
4= He said, "Please tell me, maybe I can come with you."
5= "Come with me to the market", she said.
6= He said, "How clever you are!"
7= "You asked me!", she said "Now you know where I am going."
Answer:
Silvery dust; green-draped parlor; stands; bleeding tree; sings in the elm; song seems to die up; the leaves; the flower garden is prim.
Explanation:
Imagery is used to depict a scene through vivid descriptions and literary devices. Whenever a piece is heavy with adjectives or a sense of illustration, it is safe to assume that imagery is being conveyed to the reader.
<span>Bear-proof trash cans have been shown to be effective in other towns in this state. This reasoning is VALID because it provides evidence that bear-proof trashcans are effective.
If we want to show that we keep up with the latest methods, we need to require bear-proof trash cans. This reasoning is INVALID because it does not prove these types of cans would do anything to prevent bears from getting in them. This argument has more to do with "showing" people the town can "keep up."
If we can spend money on schools and the fire department, we can also spend it on bear-proofing. This reasoning is INVALID because, in order to spend money on something, it must be proven effective. This argument does not prove that bear-proof cans are effective; it merely says money should be spent on them because money is also spent on other things.
Last year, a tourist in town was mauled by a bear on trash day. This reasoning is VALID because there appears to be a connection between the tourist's d</span>eath and the trashcans. In this case, the bear would have known that trash day = food day, and so the bear was invading human space that day and came into contact with a tourist. With bear-proof cans, bears would no longer associate trash with food, and so these types of incidents could be prevented.
