The answer is it make people more productive
because they could see and work better at night.
I hope this will help u
Look left and right
Listen in case of anything
See whether another car is coming behind to overtake it
Are they crossing the road using a pedestrian crossing
I think that's what would happen
The correct answer is D. The lack of punctuation. It makes the poem sound as if it were a single, swift, concise, and laconic sentence. It also give the poem a conversational tone, depriving it of artificiality that was a characteristic of the pre-20th-century poetry. Punctuation would fragmentise the poem and induce its flow with pauses.
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.
